1999-12-083914REPS1301501999-12-08Mr SPEAKER(Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.Bills13015r96613015Bill presented by Mr Ruddock, and read a first time.1301509:31:0013015Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This bill reflects the continuing commitment of this government to securing legitimate title to traditional lands on behalf of the Aboriginal people of the Northern Territory.The Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 provides a mechanism whereby traditional Aboriginal land in the Northern Territory, referred to in schedule 1 of that act, may be granted to Aboriginal Land Trusts to hold title on behalf of Aboriginal people by agreement. Since the act came into operation in 1977 a total of 61 separate parcels of land have been scheduled under the act. This amendment will bring the total to 64.The effect of this bill would be to bring within schedule 1 of the Land Rights Act the three areas of land which are subject to the Warumungu land claim as it relates to the Rockhampton Downs Station. The land is situated about 100 kilometres to the north-east of Tennant Creek, near the Barkly Highway.An agreement has been entered into between the Northern Territory government, the Central Land Council and the claimants. In addition to settling the Warumungu claim in relation to Rockhampton Downs, the agreement also finally disposes of the Frewena land claim.As part of this agreement, the Commonwealth will exercise its powers under the Land Rights Act, with the support of the Northern Territory government, to grant the claim areas to the traditional owners by scheduling the respective areas under the Land Rights Act.The result of this scheduling would be that no further hearing or report by the Aboriginal Land Commissioner would be necessary in order for the Aboriginal people concerned to be able to have the full rights of enjoyment of their traditional lands in fee simple, in other words, as freehold title.The government has the assurance of all parties to the negotiations that representative views of all Aboriginal people concerned have been obtained and their wishes taken into account.There are no financial implications arising from this bill. I table the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr O'Connor) adjourned.Bills1301513015Bill presented by Mr Entsch, and read a first time.1301509:34:0013015Entsch, Warren, MPMr ENTSCH7K6LeichhardtLP10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The purpose of this bill is to give effect to reforms of the Pooled Development Funds Program and amendments to operational rules under the Pooled Development Funds Act 1992.The PDF Program is a mechanism for channelling patent equity capital to small and medium sized Australian enterprises. PDFs are investment companies that receive a more competitive tax treatment in return for investing equity in eligible small and medium sized enterprises.The PDF Program arose out of a recognition that there were imperfections in the capital markets and that small and medium sized enterprises often have difficulty obtain ing equity capital, especially those that are in the early stages of development. The risks associated with such investments, and the long time frame before returns on such investments can be realised, have in the past limited the availability of development capital for such firms.The PDF Program provides a 15 per cent tax rate for equity investments in small to medium sized companies with less than $50 million in total assets. Capital gains from sales of shares in PDFs are capital gains tax free. Dividends paid by PDFs to their shareholders are exempt from income tax and dividend withholding tax while superannuation fund investors will face an effective zero rate of tax under recently announced changes following the government's initial response to the Review of Business Taxation.Between 1992 and October 1999, 72 PDFs have been registered by the PDF Registration Board. PDFs have raised over $350 million for investment purposes. Of the capital raised, over $210 million has been invested in 200 small to medium sized enterprises.In the order of 85 per cent of PDF investments have been in firms with total assets of less than $30 million. Most investments made by PDFs are between one half and two million dollars, the area which most commentators believe to be the weakest in the equity market.A significant proportion—at least 25 per cent—of PDF investments support the commercialisation of R&D. Some 35 per cent of PDF investment is at the start-up and early stage of investment, with about 50 per cent being at the expansion stage.In 1998, the PDF Program was reviewed. While the review found the program to be effectively targeted at small firms, it also found that raising capital remains difficult for many such firms. In the context of the review, most PDFs reported that it is harder to raise capital than it is to find investment opportunities; that is, the demand for such investment funds exceeds the supply.The review recommended that the program be extended, that its objectives be modified to better reflect its rationale and that some of its operational parameters be enhanced.The review noted that the program has attracted little in the way of superannuation fund investment and no investment from overseas pension funds. In response it recommended a number of options for increasing the commercial flexibility, and therefore attractiveness, of PDFs to these potential investors.The review also noted that better information on the outcomes of the PDF Program is required to enable future evaluations of the PDF Program to be more rigorously conducted.There are many other businesses that could benefit from the development and deepening of the market for patent equity capital and venture capital.Continuation of the PDF Program with amendments to make it more commercially attractive to superannuation, retail and other investors will go a long way towards realising more investment capital for small and medium enterprises engaged in activity at the riskier end of the business spectrum.The government's reform to the PDF Program will significantly increase private sector equity funding available for growing small and medium sized enterprises.The changes will offer program participants more commercial flexibility and will make PDFs a more attractive proposition for Australian superannuation funds, overseas pension funds and other investors, thereby increasing the supply of patent equity and venture capital available to growing small enterprises.Based on this underlying rationale, this bill therefore proposes the following:. the continuing funding of the PDF Program with a second review to be conducted in 2002-03;. amending the objective of the program to better reflect its rationale—the objective will become `to develop, and demonstrate the potential of, the market for providing patent equity capital, including venture capital, to small or medium sized Australian enterprises that carry on eligible businesses';. permitting widely held complying superannuation funds and similarly regulated overseas pension funds and limited partnerships of such funds to wholly own a PDF;. permitting PDFs to buy back their own shares and to return capital to their shareholders, subject to a waiting period of two years for a new or merged PDF;. permitting PDFs to make loans to equity investees subject to a maximum of 20 per cent of the PDF's shareholders' funds;. allowing the PDF Registration Board to approve the acquisition of non-transferable options in investee companies as additional investments;. allowing the board to approve the merger of PDFs as long as no cash consideration is paid to shareholders as part of the merger, other than as a bona fide dividend;. providing the board with the power to revoke registration of a PDF that is not complying with any part of the act;. altering the current test that the board must be satisfied that an applicant for a new PDF `can and will' take certain action in the future to one where the board must be satisfied that the applicant is reasonably likely to be able to implement the plan it provides;. improving the compliance and performance monitoring aspects of the program through more regular and comprehensive reporting requirements; and. amending the current definition of the term `associate' to state that it does not apply where the association did not exist prior to the persons becoming shareholders in the PDF.The new arrangements will apply to existing PDFs as well as to new entrants to the program.These arrangements will mostly come into effect from the commencement of the 1999-2000 income year.Many of these changes address the coalition's promises during the 1998 election campaign, as outlined in our then industry policy statement `Making Industry Stronger'.Funding sought for the proposal is modest. With the proposed changes to the program, additional costs to revenue have been estimated as being negligible in 1999-2000, $2 million in 1999-2000, increasing to $3 million and $5 million respectively in the following two financial years. At that stage the program will be reviewed again.In addition to the above, the bill also proposes better targeting of the PDF Program. The government is aware that some PDFs have been considering investments in businesses, through controlled subsidiaries, which would not satisfy the act's eligibility criteria if they were made directly by the PDF. The changes to the act specify that from 5 August 1999, the date of the announcement of the change, lower tier investments by controlled investee companies must also comply with the requirements of the act.The changes to the PDF Program I have outlined, together with the government's capital gains tax reforms, particularly those relating to venture capital investments by Australian superannuation funds and foreign tax exempt pension funds, will increase the supply of patent equity capital to small and medium sized Australian enterprises. By boosting investment and job creation, this will be good for all Australians.I commend this bill to the House, and I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill.Debate (on motion by Mr O'Connor) adjourned.Bills1301713017Bill presented by Mr Anthony, and read a first time.1301709:44:0013017Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPCommunity Services10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this bill is to amend a number of acts, to help rectify some specific operational and technical anomalies. The bill will also allow changes for gender specific language and the correction of typographical and drafting errors.The commencement provision of the Transport and Communications Legislation Amendment Act (No. 2) 1992 is being amended to overcome a technical difficulty that prevents a proclamation being made for the commencement of amendments to the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983. Those amendments relate to the discharge of sewage and disposal of garbage from ships in the Antarctic area.Currently, the commencement provision provides that the relevant provisions commence on a date to be fixed by proclamation, being the day on which the Protocol on Environment Protection to the Antarctic Treaty enters into force. The protocol entered into force on 14 January 1998. Insufficient notice of the entering into force of the protocol was provided to enable a proclamation to be made by that date. The amendment removes references to the protocol. It is anticipated that proclamation will be made soon after this bill receives royal assent.Schedules 2 and 3 of the bill will make almost identical amendments to the Christmas Island Act 1958 and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands Act 1955. The amendments will remove the reference to a court of Western Australia, which has been abolished, and will make changes in relation to industrial disputes and repeal obsolete provisions relating to the removal and return to the territories of accused persons and prisoners.Those sections of the Christmas Island Act and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands Act, which extended the provisions in the Workplace Relations Act 1996 relating to industrial disputes to the territories, will be repealed and replaced. This change will permit those Western Australian employees, who are employed by Western Australian employers, to work in the territories under the same industrial relations regime as they would when they are working in Western Australia. The new provisions will exclude the operation of the provisions relating to industrial disputes, the additional operation of the Workplace Relations Act in relation to certified agreements, the provisions relating to unfair dismissals and the provisions relating to AWAs from Western Australian employees who work wholly or mainly in the territory.A further amendment contained in the bill relates to the Australian Capital Territory (Planning and Land Management) Act 1988, which currently requires that the full-time member—normally the Chief Executive—must be present at meetings of the National Capital Authority for there to be a quorum.The amendments in this bill remove the requirement for the full-time member to be present at meetings for there to be a quorum when the full-time member has disclosed a pecuniary interest.The Chief Executive of the National Capital Authority is normally employed full time and, together with the part-time members—the chairperson and three other members—is subject to the requirements of the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997.The amendments are designed to meet the situation where a full-time chief executive of the authority or a full-time chairperson is the member who declares a direct or indirect pecuniary interest in a matter to be considered by the authority and is therefore unable to be present at any deliberation of the authority with respect to that matter. In that situation, under the current legislation, a meeting of the authority cannot be held unless the minister appoints a person to the acting position of full-time member, or if the minister or the authority determines that the member can be present.Under the amendments proposed, if the full-time member is the Chief Executive and is unable to attend a meeting because of a declared pecuniary interest, a quorum will be formed by the part-time chairperson and two other members. If the full-time member is also the chairperson and the chief executive and is unable to attend a meeting because of a declared pecuniary interest, a quorum will be formed by any three members.The amendments to the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978 provide for a mechanism whereby the Administrator of the Northern Territory may appoint parliamentary secretaries. The amendments also prescribe the wording of the oath and affirmation of allegiance to be taken by parliamentary secretaries before they enter on the duties of office.Currently, parliamentary secretaries in the Northern Territory government are not members of the Northern Territory Executive Council and are therefore not eligible for remuneration for their services. Under the amendments prescribed, parliamentary secretaries will become members of the Northern Territory Executive Council and will receive remuneration, allowances and entitlements as determined by the Remuneration Tribunal.Finally, the bill proposes making some miscellaneous amendments to acts, which contain drafting errors and gender specific language.The act is proposed to take effect upon receiving royal assent. I present the explanatory memorandum to the bill.Debate (on motion by Mr O'Connor) adjourned.Bills13019r98513019Message from the Governor-General transmitting particulars of proposed expenditure and recommending appropriation announced.Bill presented by Mr Fahey, and read a first time.1301909:50:0013019Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEYHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.It is with great pleasure that I introduce Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1999-2000. Together with Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1999-2000, which I shall introduce shortly, these bills comprise the additional estimates for 1999-2000.In keeping with the introduction of accrual budgeting in the 1999-2000 budget, this will be the first additional estimates presented on an accrual outcome basis.In the bills, the parliament is asked to appropriate moneys to meet essential and unavoidable expenditures from the consolidated revenue fund. These moneys are additional to the appropriations made for 1999-2000 in appropriation acts (Nos 1 and 2) 1999-2000, last budget.The additional appropriations in these two bills total some $2,496 million;. $1,847 million is sought in Appropriation Bill (No. 3) and. $649 million in Appropriation Bill (No. 4).These amounts are partly offset by savings made against appropriation acts Nos 1 and 2 1999-2000 and the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Act 1999-2000.These savings, amounting to some $949 million in gross terms, are detailed in the document entitled Statement of Savings Expected in Annual Appropriations, which has been distributed to honourable members. After allowing for prospective savings, the provisions represent a net increase of $1,547 million in appropriations in 1999-2000, an increase of 3.7 per cent on amounts made available through annual appropriations at the time of the 1999-2000 budget. It should be noted that these figures relate only to expenses financed by annual appropriations, which comprise about 25 per cent of budget total expenses. These figures do not include revisions to estimates of expenses from special appropriations.I now turn to the main areas for which the government seeks additional provisions in the Appropriation Bill (No. 3). This bill provides authority for meeting payments or expenses on the ordinary annual services of government. Details of the proposed appropriations are set out in the schedule to the bill. Principal factors contributing to the increase are:. an additional $61 million across the portfolios of Defence, Health and Aged Care, Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Attorney-General's for the provision of assistance to East Timor. This does not include separate supplementation to De fence through an ad hoc annual appropriation to provide for net additional costs;. an additional $80 million across the portfolios of Defence, Health and Aged Care and Immigration and Multicultural Affairs for the provision of assistance to Kosovar refugees;. an additional $740 million is attributable to the Department of Defence, and is the result of the transfer of funds from the Capital Investment Program to fund operational expenditure and changed priorities in the acquisition program. These changes are being made under the Defence global budgeting arrangements;. an additional $118 million to the Australian Tax Office for various administrative costs associated with the implementation of the GST and other reforms associated with A New Tax System;. an additional $43 million to the Department of Defence related to foreign exchange and price movements;. An additional $46 million to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade as part of the property reforms agreed by the government last budget. This will be offset by increased returns and dividends on the Commonwealth's property portfolio;. an additional $92 million to the Department of Health and Aged Care resulting from a review of the accounting treatment of grants and personal benefit liabilities for all programs in line with ANAO advice;. an additional $20 million has also been provided to the Department of Health and Aged Care for rephasing incentive funding under the General Practice Strategy. The funding will be returned to the budget in the forward years;. an adjustment of $41 million to the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs to account for the significant increase in illegal immigrants during the 1999 calendar year;. carryovers in the order of $200 million between 1998-1999 and 1999-2000; and. the balance of the amount included in Appropriation Bill (No. 3) is made up of minor variations in most departments and agencies.I commend the bill to the House.Debate (on motion by Mr O'Connor) adjourned.Bills13020r70513020Message from the Governor-General transmitting particulars of proposed expenditure and recommending appropriation announced.Bill presented by Mr Fahey, and read a first time.1302009:57:0013020Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEYHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time. Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1998-99 provides additional revenues for agencies to meet: expenses in relation to grants to the states under section 96 of the Constitution and for payments to the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory; administered expenses; and equity injections and loans to agencies, as well as administered capital funding and carryovers.Additional appropriations totalling $649 million are sought in Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1999-2000. This is additional to the appropriations made in Appropriation Act (No. 2) 1999-2000 last budget. The principal factors contributing to the increase are:. an additional $25 million in Transport and Regional Services for the Darwin-Alice Springs rail link;. an additional $36 million to the Department of Finance and Administration for funding to the states and territories under the natural disaster relief arrangements, including a small component of ex gratia payments for disaster relief;. an additional $50 million for an equity injection to the Australian Federal Police to enable it to extinguish accumulated liabilities under the present Australian Federal Police Adjustments Scheme;. some $208 million represents carryovers between 1998-1999 and 1999-2000; and. the balance of the amount included in Appropriation Bill (No. 4) is made up of minor variations in most departments and agencies.I commend the bill to the House.Debate (on motion by Mr O'Connor) adjourned.Bills13021r97413021Bill presented by Mr Truss, and read a first time.1302109:59:0013021Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 proposes amendments to the Fisheries Management Act 1991 and the Fisheries Administration Act 1991. These amendments will introduce new measures for control, monitoring and enforcement of foreign and domestic fishing operations to increase management effectiveness of the Australian Fisheries Management Authority, AFMA, and support sustainable use of Australia's fisheries resources.The Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics has calculated that the total gross value of production of the Australian fishing industry for 1998-99 was $1.98 billion.The amendments are the result of the ongoing refinement of fisheries management practices and changing circumstances in Australian fisheries management. The amendments also complement the fisheries enforcement, forfeiture and detention measures already included in the Fisheries Legislation Amendment Act (No. 1) 1999 and the Border Protection Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999. As a package, they will enhance AFMA's management effectiveness and significantly increase Australia's ability to ensure the sustainable use of its fisheries resources.The Fisheries Legislation Amendment Act (No. 1) 1999 dealt with strengthening enforcement action against foreign fishing boats making incursions into the Australian fishing zone, AFZ, and strengthening fisheries management controls on the high seas. This bill will further add to Australia's enforcement and management controls, for both foreign and domestic fishing boats.Key elements include changing the definition of `foreign fishing boat' to enable control over port access for a boat that may be equipped and capable of fishing but may not have been originally designed for fishing. This amendment will also clarify that control and denial of port access can be exercised over a foreign boat which is being used, or intended to be used, to resupply foreign fishing vessels. Denial of port access is a mechanism to deter fishing that may be undermining agreed regional conservation measures and also to reduce the risk of illegal foreign fishing in our AFZ.Currently, port access is being denied to Japanese tuna long line boats fishing for southern bluefin tuna outside agreed regional fisheries management arrangements. Control over supply vessels will preclude any future attempts to undermine this measure through use of a bunkering ship using Australian ports to resupply vessels on high seas fishing grounds.A further element provides AFMA with the authority to place observers on foreign boats outside the AFZ. This would enable regulations to be made that would allow the placing of observers on foreign fishing boats outside the AFZ. Observers on foreign boats would enable the gathering of data on the boat's fishing operations for research and compliance purposes. If Australia had been able to agree with Japan on a scientifically sound joint experimental fishing program, it would have involved participation of Australian observers on Japanese tuna long line boats fishing on the high seas.The bill will also increase deterrence to providing false or misleading information. These amendments would address cases where false or misleading information has been furnished in an attempt to conceal the actual amount of fish taken, processed or carried; the species of fish taken, processed or carried; or the location of a fishing boat. There will be an increase in the monetary penalty from $6,600 to 250 penalty units—currently a value of $27,500—on conviction for providing information that is false or misleading. There will also be provision for a court, upon conviction for providing false or misleading information, to order the forfeiture of a boat, fishing equipment or catch relevant to the offence or the specific proceeds gained as a result of the commission of that offence.These provisions recognise fisheries management is highly reliant on accurate information being provided by commercial operators on which to base stock assessment and management decisions.Not only is the government concerned to ensure that Australia has a strong capability to enforce its rights over our fisheries resources, but this bill also provides for more effective management by AFMA and better monitoring of our marine resources.This bill introduces new measures to collect data essential to assess the impacts of fishing on the marine environment. In particular, data may be collected on by-catch incidentally caught in fishing operations. This is consistent with the initiative to move fisheries management to ecosystem management. This data will assist in the development of by-catch action plans to minimise incidental catch. As such, it supports the recent release by the Commonwealth of the national policy on fisheries by-catch. This policy provides options by which each Australian jurisdiction can manage by-catch according to its situation in a nationally coherent and consistent manner. As a result, waste should be reduced and all components of the marine environment better conserved.The government is also clarifying the need for fishery plans of management to include provisions—for example, mitigation measures—directed at reducing to a minimum incidental catches of fish and non-fish species which are not authorised by that plan.AFMA's efficiency and effectiveness will be enhanced through widening the types of offences for which a penalty infringement notice may be issued. This provides flexibility by allowing an alternative to prosecution for minor transgressions. It is proposed to amend AFMA's functions to remove the limitation on the authority which prevented it from managing and carrying out adjustment, restructuring, exploratory and feasibility programs which had been devised by other agencies or within government. Finally, it is proposed to amend the present tax exemptions of the authority to make it liable for fringe benefits tax.With the introduction of this bill, the government completes a major commitment to ensuring that Australia's fisheries resources are better managed and that their use is more effectively enforced. I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr O'Connor) adjourned.Bills13022r97013022Bill presented by Mr Williams, and read a first time.1302210:07:0013022Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 will make a number of procedural and other amendments to the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995.The bill includes amendments to give effect to the government's decision to abolish the X classification and to introduce a new NVE, or non-violent erotica, classification.Censorship of what adults should be allowed to read, hear or see brings forth a wide divergence of views in the community. Where views in the community are divided, govern ment intervention in social issues is inherently difficult.The government is aware that some members of the community who find the portrayal of sexually explicit material on video tape offensive are unhappy with the government's decision not to ban this material. While the government understands and respects these views, there is a need to approach this issue from a general community perspective.For over two decades now, all Australian governments, of both political persuasions, have subscribed to the principles that adults should be able to read, hear and see what they wish, that persons should be protected from unsolicited material that they find offensive and that children should be protected from material that is likely to harm or disturb them. To these the act has added the need to take account of community concerns about depictions that condone or incite violence, particularly sexual violence, and the portrayal of persons in a demeaning manner.In Australia, the X-rated category is primarily concerned with explicit depictions of sexual acts which are lawful between consenting adults without any sexualised violence or coercion of any kind. For this material, the question to be asked is not whether some individuals find the material offensive but whether the general community finds it so unacceptable that it justifies its banning. The government does not consider the latter to be the case.In reaching its decision, the government took into account the fact that X-rated videos have been available in Australia for over 15 years and that a large number are circulating within the community. Given the demand for these videos, banning them would inevitably drive the industry underground. The government considers it is far better to maintain a strict regulatory regime to control the content and availability of videos containing sexually explicit material. By doing so adequate protection can be provided to minors and those who may be offended by such material and the involvement of criminal elements in its production and distribution limited.After carefully weighing the issues, it was decided that while the material was con sidered offensive by some members of the Australian community there were not sufficient grounds, as a matter of public policy, to deny adults generally the freedom to access non-violent, sexually explicit videos if they so wished.The creation of the new category does not mean that the material contained in it has government endorsement. Indeed, the government was concerned about some of the material currently permitted in the X classification. This material, which includes certain fetishes, the use of sexually aggressive language and the portrayal of persons over the age of 18 as minors, will not be permitted in the new NVE category.There have been suggestions that no purpose is served by the creation of the new NVE category and that the exclusion of the material that I have mentioned is mere window-dressing. I reject such assertions. While it is true that undesirable content may be removed from the classification by agreement of censorship ministers to amend the classification guidelines, this approach would not address some of the concerns in the community about the content of the X classification. The creation of the new category will more accurately reflect the material contained in it and remove any confusion or misperception in the community about what the classification actually contains.As to the content to be expunged, the Office of Film and Literature Classification, the OFLC, has reviewed classification records covering a six-month period. The OFLC advises that, while it is not possible to be precise, approximately 15 to 20 per cent of X classifications may be affected. This is a significant quantity, particularly given the culling of material from the X classification that has taken place over previous years.The states and territories have now agreed to the Commonwealth's proposals on X-rated videos. While the bill abolishes the current X-rated category and creates the new NVE category, complementary state and territory legislation will also be required to give full effect to the proposal.The creation of the new NVE category will also require amendment of the National Classification Code and the Classification Guidelines. I propose to table the proposed amendments to the code and the guidelines that have been agreed to in principle by censorship ministers.The agreement of the states and territories to the creation of the new NVE category does not mean that NVE classified videos will be more widely distributed. Under the national classification scheme, it is the responsibility of individual states and territories to determine what material can be legally sold or hired in their respective jurisdictions. State censorship ministers have made it clear that agreement to the Commonwealth's proposal does not imply any alteration to the ban on the sale of both X and NVE videos.The government has no wish to return to the repressive censorship practices of the past. Some of the features of the great liberal democracies, of which Australia is one, are the recognition given to individual rights and responsibilities, the importance of freedom of expression and thought and of tolerance of the views and rights of others. With appropriate safeguards, the right of adults to choose for themselves what they see, hear or read is fundamental to the maintenance of these traditions.In any civilised society, individual rights must, of course, be tempered by the need to have regard to the common community good. That is why there is a classification scheme in place to ensure that certain material, about which there is a general community consensus, is not permitted to be sold or distributed in this country. This material includes child pornography, depictions of rape and torture, and other abhorrent sexual and violent material.The government does not believe that the portrayal of explicit, but lawful, adult sex on film where there is no coercion or sexualised violence of any kind falls within this category.The government's decision should be seen as a genuine and reasoned attempt to balance conflicting views and to arrive at an acceptable solution to a difficult issue. In this regard I am pleased to note that the government's approach was also supported by the opposi tion in the policy which it took to the last election.I turn now to the other amendments contained in the bill. These have also been agreed to by the states and territories and some will require complementary state and territory legislation. Most of them have already been discussed with the industry and have been warmly welcomed.The revised cooperative Commonwealth, state and territory legislative scheme, which commenced on 1 January 1996, has now been in operation for over three years. As with all new legislative schemes, experience with its operation has revealed the need for some procedural and related amendments to improve its operation. The need for these amendments has come to light through reports of the community liaison officer, from representations from the various industry sectors, through the OFLC's practical day-to-day experience with the act and through prosecutions under state and territory enforcement legislation.The bill contains a broad range of mostly minor procedural and technical amendments to the act. These are too numerous to mention here but they are, of course, dealt with in the explanatory memorandum that accompanies the bill.There are, however, two amendments that I wish to refer to specifically. The first relates to the expansion in the range of films that are to be exempt from classification.Since 1 November 1997, the OFLC has been required to recover through fees the full cost of providing classification services. At the time those fees were introduced, concern was expressed about the effect of cost increases on the classification of material that has a limited market appeal in Australia. This concern continued following the government's decision to introduce full cost recovery for the OFLC and the introduction of legislation to impose charges for the provision of OFLC services as a tax.In the light of these concerns, I appointed Ernst and Young to review the proposed charges structure. Following their Review of Statutory Charges for the Classification of Publications, Films and Computer Games, the government introduced amendments to the act to expand the power of the Director of the Classification Board to waive fees and charges. I also raised with my state and territory colleagues the need to expand the range of films that are exempt from classification.As a result, the bill proposes that the current exemptions in the act, which cover films for business, accounting, professional, scientific or educational purposes, be expanded. Under the bill, current affairs, hobbyist, sporting, family, live performance, musical presentation and religious films will be exempt from classification.Films within these categories are typically distributed to a fairly specialised market sector, often in relatively small numbers. Removing the need for them to be classified should ensure their continued availability and, thereby, contribute to product diversity in the Australian market.Any expansion of the categories of exempt films involves a question of balance if the integrity of the classification scheme and the benefits it bestows on the community are to be maintained. To this end, the exemption will apply only to films that fall within the G and PG categories.Concern has also been expressed about the effect the level of classification fees might have on short films from new or emerging film makers, particularly in light of the resurgence in such films in recent years. To address this, the bill extends the power to waive fees to encompass such films. This means that films of this kind, which would usually fall outside the exempt categories, will still need to be classified, but the fee for doing so can be waived or reduced.I believe that the government's response to concerns expressed about the effect of the increase in classification fees and charges on certain industry sectors has been both timely and responsible and that it should address many of the issues that have been raised.The other amendment I wish to mention briefly relates to the right under the act for `a person aggrieved' to seek a review by the Classification Review Board of a classification decision of the Classification Board.While it is difficult to set down precise parameters, it is clear, in light of judicial decisions, that `a person aggrieved' must at least be a person with an interest in the decision concerned which is greater than that of an ordinary member of the public.In a case earlier this year, the review board decided that the members of the community groups who sought a review of the decision concerned did not meet the `person aggrieved' test as laid down by the courts.There are precedents in other Commonwealth legislation, for example the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, to expand legislatively the range of persons covered by the term `a person aggrieved' and provisions of similar effect.Accordingly, the bill provides that `a person aggrieved' includes, with certain safeguards, organisations or persons with a particular interest and involvement in the contentious aspects of the subject matter or theme of the particular publication, film or computer game.The government believes that this amendment will, in relation to decisions where there is some community concern, introduce a greater degree of flexibility into the review process.It is estimated that the broadening of the criteria for waiver of fees and the expansion of the range of films exempt from classification will result in a reduction in revenue for the Commonwealth of approximately $300,000 per annum.I commend the bill to the House. I present the explanatory memorandum to the bill and I table a copy of proposed amendments to the Classification Guidelines and the National Classification Code.Debate (on motion by Mr O'Connor) adjourned.Bills13025r97113025Bill presented by Mr Williams, and read a first time.1302610:20:0013026Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This bill is yet another important landmark in the government's on-going program of copyright reform. The last 18 months have seen the passage of legislation to remove restrictions on the importation of legitimate overseas compact discs—a reform that has delivered greater choice and lower prices for Australian consumers. It has seen the passage of the Copyright Amendment (Computer Programs) Act 1999, which will enable our software developers to compete on an equal footing with their counterparts overseas. And, most recently, we have seen the introduction into this House of the Copyright Amendment (Digital Agenda) Bill 1999, which will update Australia's copyright law to meet the challenges posed by digital technologies.The bill I am introducing today will establish for the first time a comprehensive regime for the protection of the moral rights of Australian authors, artists and film-makers. The bill implements the coalition's commitment at the 1996 election—reiterated at the 1998 election—to develop legislation to ensure greater respect for the integrity of creative endeavour.The bill incorporates provisions previously included in the Copyright Amendment Bill 1997. The moral rights provisions were withdrawn from that bill in 1998 when it became apparent that there was a need for further consultation on two or three specific issues of concern to industry. Aside from these issues, there was a favourable reaction to most areas of the original legislation, and the government has retained those areas intact in this bill.At the time the moral rights provisions were withdrawn, the government gave an undertaking that they would be reintroduced after further consultations to resolve the disputed issues. Consultations late last year and earlier this year resulted in a number of proposals that have been implemented in this bill. Comprehensive protection of moral rights for authors and artists is something Australia's creators have long been advocating. Moral rights are also the subject of longstanding international obligations for Australia.The Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works is the main international convention on copyright. Under the convention, `moral rights' are: the right of an author or artist to be identified with his or her works—known as the right of attribution; and the right to object to alteration or other derogatory treatment of the work that would be prejudicial to the author or artist's honour or reputation—known as the right of integrity.The rights apply to literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works and films, but not to sound recordings. There has been increasing criticism that Australia's implementation of its obligations under the Berne Convention is fragmentary and incomplete. This bill will address those criticisms.But this bill is not just about fulfilling international obligations. More importantly, it is about acknowledging the great importance of respect for the integrity of creative endeavour. At its most basic, this bill is a recognition of the importance to Australian culture of literary, artistic, musical and dramatic works and of those who create them.The government recognises the concerns of users of copyright—such as broadcasters, advertising agencies, film-makers and newspaper publishers—that moral rights will unduly hamper their existing practices. However, if a user of a work respects the rights of the creator, the user will not need the author's permission in making use of that work. Thus, if a user acknowledges, where reasonable, the authorship of the work and, where reasonable, avoids treatment that is prejudicial to the reputation of the author, there can be no objection by the author or creator.Turning to some of the key aspects of this bill that differ from the original legislation, the Senate committee that examined the original legislation recommended that the writers of scripts for films and television programs should be considered authors of the film or television program alongside the authors designated by the original legislation—namely, the producer and the director. The government accepted that recommendation, and the bill provides accordingly.A related proposal coming out of the recent consultations asked for legal recognition of an agreement among the producer, director and screenwriter of a film, or some of them, on the joint exercise of their rights of integrity. It was proposed that such an agreement should operate to prevent any one of the parties to the agreement from separately taking action to enforce that right. The bill reflects the government's acceptance of this proposal and gives legal recognition to these co-authorship agreements.As recognised by the government when withdrawing the original legislation, the most controversial and divisive issue was whether it should be possible for authors, artists and film-makers to waive their moral rights. Understandably, creators saw the provision for waiver in the original legislation as a means by which economically powerful users of their works could force them to agree to give up these new rights completely. In response to these concerns, the concept of waiver has been dropped from this bill.At the same time, the bill clarifies the provision that was in the original legislation for an author, artist or film-maker to consent to the doing of something that would otherwise infringe his or her moral rights.In determining whether non-attribution of authorship of a work is an infringement of moral rights, a court will have to consider whether the omission was reasonable in the circumstances. Reasonableness will depend on a number of relevant factors that must be taken into account—notably, the nature of the work, industry practice and whether the creator was an employee. This bill has added to the original legislation by including as a factor any relevant voluntary industry code of practice.Whether alteration of or dealing with a work infringes the right of integrity will also be subject to a similar test of reasonableness based on corresponding factors. As under the original legislation, some specific actions have been expressly exempted from infringement of the right of integrity. This bill clarifies one of those exceptions—that alteration to or demolition of a building will not infringe the right of integrity in the architect's design or in any work, such as a mural, that forms part of the building. This was always the government's policy intention, but there was some concern expressed that the drafting of the original legislation was ambiguous. Of course, where a building is altered without consulting the architect, the owner might have to remove any public sign—such as a wall plaque—giving the false impression that the architect designed the building as altered, if the architect so desires.The bill includes provision for a wide range of remedies that courts can apply in redressing the injury caused by an infringement of moral rights. This bill has added to the original legislation by including a requirement that, before granting an injunction, a court must consider whether to give the parties an opportunity to reach a settlement by negotiation or mediation.Experience in other countries suggests—and the government envisages—that enforcement of moral rights through the courts will be an exceptional occurrence. We believe that the main impact of the new legislation will be to build upon existing good industry practice and, where necessary, to raise awareness in an educative way of the need to respect the creativity of authors and artists.Another issue that arose in the most recent consultations was the duration of the new moral rights. Under the earlier legislation, the rights would have lasted for the duration of the copyright—that is, the life of the author of the work plus 50 years or, in the case of a film, 50 years from publication. The agreement that emerged from industry consultations included a proposal that the right of integrity should cease on the death of the author, artist or film-maker. This bill implements that agreement.A matter that preoccupied the Senate committee and came up in the later consultations was the extent to which the new moral rights should apply to works and films already in existence. Both the majority and the minority of the Senate committee recommend ed that the new rights should not apply to existing films or to works by authors and artists who had died when the new rights became operative. The agreement by parties in the film industry also proposed that the new rights only apply to films made after the rights come into force.Accordingly, the approach adopted in the bill has been to limit the application of the right of integrity to future works and films but to continue to apply the right of attribution and the right against false attribution to existing works. Because of the nature of the right of attribution in relation to films, that right too will not apply to existing films.This bill is another initiative from a government committed to reshaping copyright law for the 21st century and beyond. Those parts of the original legislation that were widely supported have been preserved in this bill. The government has addressed the main issues of controversy and has accommodated as far as possible the agreements and views conveyed to us.The bill with these changes is, I believe, a balanced package of rights, which will represent a great advance in the recognition of, and respect for, the creativity of authors, artists and film-makers. It is a workable scheme that deserves the strong support of this parliament. I commend the bill to the House. I present the explanatory memorandum to the bill.Debate (on motion by Mr O'Connor) adjourned.Bills13028r97213028Bill presented by Mr Williams, and read a first time.1302810:31:0013028Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1999 makes a number of amendments to the Customs Tariff Act 1995. All of the amendments have been previously tabled in this House as customs tariff proposals and now require incorporation in the Customs Tariff Act. As the reasons for the amendments were outlined when each of the tariff proposals was initially tabled, I will only outline the major amendments at this time.The amendments contained in schedule 2 of this bill reinstate the five per cent rate of customs duty which applied prior to 1 September 1998 on certain goods classified in chapter 90 of the customs tariff.The goods on which this action is being taken are:. Certain drawing, marking-out and mathematical calculating instruments;. Certain rulers made of wood or plastic;. Electrical test benches and certain machines for balancing mechanical parts;. Certain gas, electric and liquid meters; and. Steel tape measures.These goods were free of customs duty following the implementation of the recommendations of the industry commission in its review of the medical and scientific equipment industries.The implementation of these recommendations removed the duty from a wide range of products, some of which were not medical or scientific equipment. Some Australian manufacturers advised the government that the tariff reductions on non-medical and non-scientific equipment had an adverse effect on their manufacturing profitability. In light of these representations, the five per cent customs rate of duty was reinstated on the goods which I have previously listed. Reinstatement of duty has operated since 3 September 1999.Schedule 3 of this bill commenced on 1 October 1999 and removed the customs rates of duty on steel tin plate, and aluminium can sheet used in the manufacture of aluminium cans. This action was recommended by the 1996 Industry Commission report on packaging and labelling.Steel tin plate is primarily used for food cans but also for other containers such as paint tins and aerosol cans. In the case of aluminium can sheet, the removal of tariffs applies to three can sheet products— bodystock, endstock and tabstock used in the manufacture of aluminium cans.The removal of these customs tariffs resulted in lower input cost to the food and beverage canning industry. This has improved competitiveness in this industry and has led to increased export of these products. The removal of these tariffs is further proof of the government's commitment to lowering business costs and helping develop competitive Australian industries, while providing consumers with better priced products.I commend the bill to the House, and I present the explanatory memorandum to the bill.Debate (on motion by Mr O'Connor) adjourned.Miscellaneous1302910:34:0013029Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I move:Customs Tariff Proposal No. 7 1999.Customs Tariff Proposal No. 7 1999, which I have just tabled, contains alterations to the Customs Tariff Act 1995 to remove the customs duty on 268 nuisance tariffs. It also creates an additional note in chapter 57 of schedule 3 to the customs tariff. The changes will commence on 15 December 1999.Nuisance tariff items attract duty of less than five per cent, raise less than $100,000 in annual revenue and offer little or no protective benefit to industry.The reductions in tariff rates will lower business input costs which in turn will enable Australian manufacturers to be more competitive in world trade.Item 46 of the proposal addresses a recent decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in relation to hand-tufted carpets. It involves inserting an additional note to chapter 57 of the customs tariff to ensure that the classification of hand-tufted carpets is consistent with the international convention for classifying goods to which Australia is a signatory.A summary of the alterations contained in this proposal has been prepared and is being circulated for the information of honourable members. I commend the proposal to the House.Debate (on motion by Mr McClelland) adjourned.Bills13029r85413029Consideration resumed from 6 December.Senate's amendments—(12) Clause 46, page 28 (lines 3 to 20), omit the clause.(15) Clause 76, page 46 (line 9) to page 47 (line 4), omit the clause.10:37:0013029Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I move:That amendments Nos (12) and (15), insisted on by the Senate, be agreed to.I am pleased to be able to advise the House that, after further discussions with the opposition, the government will, as a means of ensuring the passage of the Federal Magistrates Bill 1999 and the bill to be considered next, accept the opposition amendments that the Senate has insisted on. At the same time, I should point out that the Senate has not insisted on a number of other opposition amendments that would have, from the government's perspective, compromised this important reform. I thank the opposition for being prepared to engage in constructive negotiations on these bills and I welcome the establishment of the Federal Magistrates Service.The creation of Australia's first lower level Federal Court is a significant milestone in the development of the federal judicial system. It is fitting that the government is taking this important new step towards improving access to justice as we enter the new millennium.Senate amendment (12) removes the need for the Federal Magistrates Service to grant leave before a party to a proceeding can issue a subpoena. Senate amendment (15) removes a provision that would have specifically allowed the court to give reasons, either orally or in writing, and in short form in accordance with the rules of the court. The government would have preferred to retain these provisions since they were designed to assist the court in streamlining its operations. However, as I have indicated, the government has decided not to oppose these amendments in the interests of ensuring the passage of the balance of the bill through the parliament without amendment. The government is confident that the court will make full use of its rule making powers to ensure that its procedures are as efficient and streamlined as possible.10:39:0013030McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—The Labor Party agrees with the government's proposals. We had an effective working relationship with the government in coming to an agreement about the Federal Magistrates Bill 1999 . Basically, the position of the Australian Labor Party on this matter is that we do not oppose the establishment of the Federal Magistrates Service. Indeed, the idea has been around since the time of the previous government. We had the view, and we are on the record as having had the view, that it would have been more efficient for the service to have been integrated into the existing court structures. A good example of where that has been done efficiently is the Family Court of Western Australia and, indeed, most state Supreme Courts have a system whereby masters act as, if you like, lower order judicial officers but, nonetheless, work off the same court docket system in terms of the court's case management function.In our view that would have worked much more efficiently in eating into what is, particularly in the family law area, a situation of massive delays. Those delays are contributing to tension, stress, anxiety and in some cases—inappropriately but regrettably—violence as a result of the frustration of having cases delayed, particularly those dealing with access in relation to children. This situation of chronic delays is something that we in the opposition recognise must be addressed. The government has said, `This is how we propose to address it,' but we fear that, if this is the government's sole measure, it is not going to be good enough because there will be only 16 magistrates appointed to replace the 19 judicial registrars of the Family Court. Furthermore, the magistrates are going to have additional Federal Court responsibilities such as in trade practices matters, false and misleading conduct, bankruptcy and a whole range of other areas. We say that that additional burden on the magistrates, as well as them having the obligation to reduce the Family Court delays, will be a very severe one.We are also on the record as saying that we favour a more cooperative approach with state governments whereby existing state magistrates are given dual commissions to handle not only state work but also federal work. Clearly, not all magistrates would have the appropriate qualifications or training, but we believe that a significant number would. That would have been a particular bonus for regional Australia. Magistrates who are already located in those areas could have provided a complete service, if you like, on both state and federal issues.In terms of the technical amendments which we persisted in—and we indicate our appreciation to the government in its acceptance of them—we recognise that during litigation, if a party has, as a matter of right, an entitlement to discovery and interrogatories, this could result in unnecessary fishing expeditions which could result in delays and expense. But we believe, particularly in the Family Court area, it is important for the parties to have access to the financial circumstances of the other party before there can be meaningful negotiations.That is particularly the case where one or other of the parties is involved in a small business. It will not be a matter of simply checking what their pay slip is each week; you will need some more detailed accounting information. So we think the ability for parties to obtain subpoenas at an early stage in the proceedings will actually enhance the process. We also believe that requiring the magistrates to give reasons for their judgments in some detail, consistent with the Acts Interpretation Act 1901, will also assist the delivery of justice because, particularly in these controversial and emotional issues, it is important for the parties to fully understand why a decision has been made. Again, we say that that will not increase the cost of litigation for those who are before the Federal Magistrates Service.Finally, we note with some sense of relief that the government has abandoned trying to put very controversial industrial relations powers into the batch of powers of the Federal Magistrates Service. They were completely inappropriate. Other powers would have been appropriate, such as in breach of awards or even unfair dismissal cases, but the powers contemplated were very much geared at the controversial end of the spectrum. It was pleasing to note that Minister Reith's pressure did not carry the day at the end of the debate.10:44:0013031Roxon, Nicola, MPMs ROXON83KGellibrandALP00—I would like to speak, picking up the last comments from the member for Barton in relation to the industrial relations matters that have been removed from the Federal Magistrates Bill 1999 . I notice that the Attorney-General did not mention this as one of the areas where the government has agreed to the amendments that were promoted by the Labor Party in the Senate. But it has been a great triumph for good sense, I think, and it is a compliment to the Attorney that he has not enabled Minister Reith to go ahead with these controversial plans.It certainly has been the end of a very dramatic couple of weeks for the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. He does not seem to have been able to take a trick at all recently. The second wave changes have already been knocked back. This is another sensible knock-back from the Senate and one where I think we are seeing the government being prepared to pull this minister back into line on occasion when he is about to step a little too far.It has been clear that this proposal was never appropriate. As the member for Barton has said, it was a proposal that extremely complex and controversial industrial matters be referred to a magistrates court. It was not something that dealt with access to justice, the delays that people frequently experience when pursuing award breaches often for small amounts of money to which they are entitled, or unfair dismissal matters where unnecessary delays can cause great hardship. It was a proposal to put injunctive provisions before the Magistrates Court—provisions that often involve very complex argument about whether or not unions or workers are taking protected industrial action which may include some difficult legal concepts that have to be dealt with before a court can then apply these provisions and order that an injunction be put in place against workers.This step was taken by Minister Reith because he has been very unhappy with the decisions made both in the Industrial Relations Commission and in the Federal Court. If he cannot get his way on these things, he always looks at a new way of trying to get his outcome. He is not prepared to accept any losses, and he certainly has had a few in the Federal Court where it has been prepared, as it should, to look at international standards; it has been prepared to apply appropriate provisions in relation to the transmission of business. In the Maritime Union case, it needed to interpret, in a very complex way, the freedom of association provisions, which were ultimately upheld by the High Court, as it has done in many cases in respect of these section 127 provisions. It was entirely inappropriate that there was ever a suggestion that a new magistrates court should deal with these sorts of provisions.I must say that it is a great relief that this second string to the minister's plans for trying to remove fairness from the industrial relations system was stopped at an appropriate time. We know that there is still a risk in the future and that this minister is used to being knocked about the head a bit. He will not stop just because these provisions have been knocked out this time or that the second wave provisions have been withdrawn in the Senate. We know that in the new year he will come back with some equally outrageous proposals. I would hope that at that time the government and the Attorney, who is sitting at the table today, will also take a sensible approach in dealing with the sorts of rights that workers should be entitled to have in this country.We all know that a balanced industrial relations system is something important to strive for, and it is a matter that should not be taken lightly. We should not allow the ideological agenda of ministers like the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business to cloud our judgment on what people's fundamental rights are. Workers in this country are just as entitled to exercise those fundamental rights as are others.We would encourage as well a further opportunity to look at ways of dealing promptly with matters such as award breaches and unfair dismissals, but in particular the expense involved in pursuing individual award breach claims. We have seen many examples of workers not being able to pursue their entitlements in a way that is at all cost effective or reasonable. Certainly, most workers cannot do so unless they have the support and financial backing of a union.It is important that we believe workers' award entitlements should be able to be claimed and pursued where an employer is not paying their proper entitlements. Even Peter Reith, the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business, believes that workers should be able to claim their entitlements; he just wants to remove any legal capacity enabling them to do it!I hope that we will see some sensible outcomes in the future making it a reality for workers to be able to pursue their claims in whatever is the appropriate court, and that we will not see a proposal whereby such complex industrial matters—matters that have been and are being handled fairly and sensibly by the Federal Court—are referred or proposed to be referred to a magistrates court, a court which should deal with simple and quick matters, and one that will already be overworked by its new Family Court matters. (Time expired)10:49:0013032Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The member for Gellibrand commented that I had not mentioned the workplace relations amendment. The reason I had not is because it is dealt with in the consequential amendments bill and I was proposing to refer to it then. I do not want to redebate the issues on which the Labor Party has taken such a paranoid view of life. The proposal contemplated that the simple and less complex sorts of cases in relation to freedom of association and section 127 applications could be dealt with by the Magistrates Court.Ms Roxon interjecting—7V5Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS—I cannot accept that there are no such simple cases that may be brought between an employee and a small business proprietor. The issue is now behind us, but I will comment on it further when we come to the consequential amendments bill.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills13032r85313032Consideration resumed from 6 December.Senate's amendments—(1) Schedule 4, page 19 (after line 22), after item 69, insert:69A Paragraph 18A(3)(f)Omit "Rules of Court", substitute "Federal Court Rules".(2) Schedule 8, item 11, page 25 (after line 33), after subsection (5), insert: (5A) If, in dismissing an appeal under subsection (1), the Family Court is of the opinion that the appeal does not raise any question of general principle, it may, in accordance with the standard Rules of Court, give reasons for its decision in short form.(3) Schedule 8, item 11, page 26 (line 18), omit "(1);", substitute "(1); or".(4) Schedule 8, item 11, page 26 (after line 18), after paragraph (8)(c), insert: (d) to reinstate an appeal under subsection (1) that, because of the standard Rules of Court, was taken to have been abandoned; or (e) to stay an order of the Family Court made in connection with an appeal under subsection (1);(5) Schedule 9, item 11, page 30 (after line 3), after subsection (5), insert: (5A) If, in dismissing an appeal under subsection (1), the Family Court is of the opinion that the appeal does not raise any question of general principle, it may, in accordance with the standard Rules of Court, give reasons for its decision in short form.(6) Schedule 9, item 11, page 30 (line 21), omit "(1);", substitute "(1); or".(7) Schedule 9, item 11, page 30 (after line 21), after paragraph (8)(c), insert: (d) to reinstate an appeal under subsection (1) that, because of the standard Rules of Court, was taken to have been abandoned; or (e) to stay an order of the Family Court made in connection with an appeal under subsection (1);(8) Schedule 11, item 25, page 40 (line 24) to page 41 (line 18), omit section 33C.(9) Schedule 11, item 42, page 44 (lines 4 to 8), omit paragraph (a), substitute: (a) proceedings are instituted in the Federal Magistrates Court in relation to property of a total value exceeding, at the time the proceedings are commenced: (i) $300,000; or (ii) if another amount is specified in the regulations—that other amount; and(10) Schedule 11, item 42, page 44 (after line 16), after subsection (1), insert: (1A) If: (a) after proceedings have been instituted in the Federal Magistrates Court in relation to property, the total value of the property exceeds: (i) $300,000; or (ii) if another amount is specified in the regulations—that other amount; and (b) the respondent in answer to the application by which the proceedings are instituted, is seeking an order different from that sought in the application; the Federal Magistrates Court must, before proceeding further with proceedings, inform the parties that, unless each of them consents to the Federal Magistrates Court continuing to hear and determine the proceedings, the Federal Magistrates Court is required to transfer the proceedings to the Family Court.(11) Schedule 11, item 42, page 44 (line 18), after "hearing", insert ", or continuing to hear,".(12) Schedule 11, item 42, page 44 (line 20), after "hearing", insert ", or continuing to hear,".(13) Schedule 11, item 42, page 44 (line 24), after "(1)", insert "or (1A)".(14) Schedule 11, item 42, page 44 (line 28), after "(1)", insert "or (1A)".(15) Schedule 11, item 63, page 48 (line 9) to page 49 (line 20), omit the item. (16) Schedule 11, item 76, page 51 (after line 16), after subsection (6), insert: (6A) If, in dismissing an appeal under subsection (1), the Family Court is of the opinion that the appeal does not raise any question of general principle, it may, in accordance with the standard Rules of Court, give reasons for its decision in short form.(17) Schedule 11, item 76, page 51 (line 33), omit "(1);", substitute "(1); or".(18) Schedule 11, item 76, page 51 (after line 33), after paragraph (9)(b), insert: (c) to reinstate an appeal under subsection (1) that, because of the standard Rules of Court, was taken to have been abandoned; or (d) to stay an order of the Family Court made in connection with an appeal under subsection (1);(19) Schedule 12, item 4, page 57 (line 30) to page 58 (line 2), omit the item.(20) Schedule 12, item 6, page 59 (line 26) to page 60 (line 21), omit section 32AC.(21) Schedule 16, item 20, page 68 (line 26), omit "46V(1)(c) ", substitute "46PV(1)(c) ".(22) Page 71 (after line 7), after Schedule 18, insert:Schedule 18A—Amendment of the Maternity Leave (Commonwealth Employees) Act 19731 After paragraph 5(3)(b) Insert: (ba) a person who is a Federal Magistrate;(23) Schedule 25, page 80 (line 2) to page 82 (line 18), omit the Schedule.10:51:0013033Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I move:That amendments Nos (19), (20) and (23), insisted upon by the Senate, be agreed to.For the reasons I have already indicated, the government is prepared to agree to these amendments in order to secure the passage of both bills, the Federal Magistrates Bill 1999 and the Federal Magistrates (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1999 . Senate amendment No. 19 omits a provision that would have allowed the Federal Court to give short form reasons when dismissing an appeal which did not raise a question of general principle. Senate amendment No. 20 omits a provision that would have allowed regulations to be made mandating the transfer of certain kinds of proceedings from the Federal Court to the Federal Magistrates Service. Senate amendment No. 23 omits a provision that would have conferred jurisdiction under the Workplace Relations Act 1996 on the Federal Magistrates Service by this bill. The opposition has made various claims about the government's motives in seeking to confer workplace relations jurisdictions on the Federal Magistrates Service, and some of those claims have been repeated this morning. It goes without saying that the government rejects the opposition's allegations about the government's motives in the proposed conferral of jurisdiction on the court. Indeed, the government should make it quite clear that it reserves the right to raise the issue of the conferral of workplace jurisdiction on the Federal Magistrates Service in the future.Nevertheless, in the interests of securing the passage of the federal magistrates bills through parliament, the government has decided not to pursue this conferral of jurisdiction on the court at this stage. The bills have been carefully crafted to facilitate a more streamlined, less technical approach being taken to the conduct of litigation in the Federal Magistrates Service. The government sees it as vital that the integrity of the provisions in the bills is maintained to encourage the fulfilment of these goals. It is for this reason that the government is therefore prepared to defer the issue of the workplace relations jurisdiction of the court for another day.10:53:0013034McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—The opposition also supports these amendments to the Federal Magistrates (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1999 . Dealing first with the issue of short form reasons in appeal matters, for similar reasons that I raised in respect of the substantive bill, the opposition is firmly of the view that, even though it is easier and more convenient for judges, who we accept are busy, to give short form reasons, from the point of view of the perception of justice and that justice be done we think it is important for litigants to have full details as to why a matter has been decided either in their favour or against them. This is particularly relevant in the family law area where members on both sides of the House would have people coming through their doors quite frequently who are discontent and upset with outcomes of Family Court cases.Having said that, that is no reflection on the Family Court because, of necessity, it is an area where you are dividing losses: you are dividing property and you are dividing time with children. So, of necessity, people are going to walk away from any Family Court case being upset at the outcome. That is not to say it was not a just and appropriate outcome, but unless they perceive that all their arguments had been considered and dealt with not only by the judge at first instance but also on appeal, if they have gone to the trouble and expense of an appeal, there is a risk that the system itself will be under threat. That is why we persisted with those reasons.In respect of the issue of transfer of jurisdiction from the Federal Court by way of regulation, we expressed our concern as to whether that was an appropriate thing to occur without the sanction of parliament, albeit we recognised that it was proposed that the regulation be disallowable. We think the transfer of jurisdiction is more appropriate to be dealt with by parliament. We did not have the same concern in the family law area because we know what the jurisdiction of the Family Court is as it has been delineated in a specific act of parliament. Hence, we are more comfortable with that occurring by way of regulation in those circumstances.Coming finally, again, to the issue of the industrial relations power, although the minister said that there could be simple proceedings under section 127, which is the imposition of a penalty for breaching no strike orders of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission, while the parties themselves may be a small business or an individual, the issues themselves are invariably extremely complex. The Federal Court has developed very sophisticated case law in this area. It has applied and considered a whole range of issues, including Australia's international treaty obligations, and it is fundamental that, as we move into the 21st century, we in Australia respect those international obligations. Not to take those matters into consideration is short-sighted in the extreme. There is no doubt that Australia's standard of living will be dependent on the standard of living of our regional neighbours. If we feign respect for international conventions but do not apply them in our political and judicial systems, we will be undermining the respect for those international conventions in our region.We in the opposition say that the Federal Court has developed—and, by and large, I have to say they are extremely fair, talented and small `l' liberal judges on the Federal Court bench—an appropriate range of case law on those no strike orders and also on freedom of association issues. In that area, I have to say the decisions by and large have not necessarily favoured employees. Again, we say it was quite inappropriate for those powers to have even been contemplated as being within those to be exercised by the Federal Magistrates Service. We recognise that the government is going to have another go at it in its second wave legislation. But they should have done that from the outset. Minister Reith should have agreed to say, `Look, this isn't my territory. You can negotiate with the opposition in respect of this bill, but I will take responsibility where it is an industrial issue.' (Time expired)10:58:0013035Roxon, Nicola, MPMs ROXON83KGellibrandALP00—The government can come in here and try to put whatever spin it wants to on its backdown in relation to industrial relations matters. The Attorney-General can say that the Labor Party is casting all sorts of aspersions on the government in respect of its motives. We do not need to look at the government's motives for this; we can just look at the government's actions in relation to the industrial relations agenda and the way that agenda was attempted to be furthered through the provisions of this Federal Magistrates (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1999 .We know that in the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (More Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 1999 , as it ridiculously was called, there were proposals to give the state courts jurisdiction in industrial matters. That was the first option in trying to give employers a way out of going to the Federal Court, which was the expert court in this matter. We know this was the third rung, if you like, because you were also going to be able to choose—if you did not like the Federal Court or if the state court in your state was not to your liking or you could not get the outcome you wanted there—to go to the Federal Magistrates Court. And no doubt Minister Reith would have had some sort of say in the appointments to that Federal Magistrates Court and would have appointed just as many politically motivated and ideologically driven people as he has already done in all of the appointments he has made since he has been Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business.I notice that the Attorney, who is at the table, is shaking his head. I am not suggesting that the Attorney would like to be part of this ideological warfare. In fact, I have some respect for the fact that the Attorney would no doubt be horrified at some of the actions of his colleagues. As I said before, it is good to see that the government has woken up to the fact that its Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business could be the single minister responsible for bringing the government down if it proceeds with this sort of agenda, rather than with a far more sensible approach to the legal system and a fairer approach to industrial relations.As I said before, these provisions had suggested that actions under section 127 and under part XA of the Workplace Relations Act be referred to the Magistrates Court. The Attorney suggested that in some matters these are simple issues. Certainly in my previous experience as a practising lawyer in this area when these provisions were first introduced these were the most complex of industrial relations matters that any lawyer could deal with. On top of being complex matters, section 127 orders relate to not only penalties that can be ordered but to the provision of injunctive relief.It strikes at the core of our legal system. When a person is going to lose their liberty to take some legitimate action—in these cases the debate is whether or not the industrial action being taken by workers is legitimate—very serious consideration should be given before they are prevented from doing that. That serious consideration needs to take account of all of the factors that have previously been argued before the Federal Court. It is a sore loser who says, `If we don't get the outcomes we want on one or two cases where we would like the unions to be brought into line, although they have done everything according to our laws, we're going to change the system.' That is really what we can see.We do not have to search for motives; we can just look at the proposals that this government has put up. This was one of them. If the Attorney wants to take the time to go through the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (More Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 1999 in the second wave legislation, he will find that for every decision of the Federal Court that was made in favour of a union over the last couple of years there is a specific provision in that bill to try to change that law, because the government has not been happy with the way the Federal Court has ruled. It has happened in relation to the transmission of business provisions. They are probably the most obvious ones. And it happens in a number of other areas.We are lucky and, in fact, grateful to be able to say that the Labor Party, with the support of the Democrats in the Senate, has been able to stop this, at least at this time. With the cooperation and the good sense, obviously, of the Attorney and a number of other ministers in the government, this proposal has also been stopped. I would urge the Attorney not to, as he says, `revisit the referral of these workplace relations matters to a federal magistracy', and instead to look at some of the very important issues for workers, like how we can set up a sensible, quick and cheap method for workers to be able to claim award entitlements where they are being taken advantage of by their employers.11:03:0013036Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I will be very brief. I am not going to debate the industrial relations issues that are not really before us at this time. But I do want to say that the proposed Chief Federal Magistrate and the other 15 federal magistrates whom we contemplate appointing in the course of the next few months will be appointed on merit. They will not be appointed on the basis of anticipation that they will give a particular sort of decision and a particular sort of direction. Any suggestion that anybody would accept appointment on those terms not only is offensive but could well be illegal. I commend the Federal Magistrates Service to the House and look forward to providing greater access to justice for Australians.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills13036r96513036Debate resumed from 7 December, on motion by Mr Costello:That the bill be now read a second time.11:04:0013036Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00—The Appropriation (East Timor) Bill 1999-2000 gives legislative authority for the funding of expenditure in 1999-2000 by the Department of Defence to the tune of some $860 million and the Australian Agency for International Development—that is, AusAID—for $60 million relating to Australia's involvement in East Timor. I do not think we have to recount in the parliament here today what has happened in that newly emerging nation state and the reasons why Australia has participated through INTERFET and the way in which Australia's military involvement in fact came about, although I think there was a little revision of history about some of that contained in the Prime Minister's statement to this place on 23 November, when he outlined the reasons why additional funds would have to be found and how that would be paid for. Indeed, I might say a little bit more about that in a moment.I will, however, yet again place firmly on the public record in this place, for anyone who cares to listen to or to read this speech at some stage in the future, that the Australian Labor Party unequivocally supports our men and women who are serving in East Timor as part of the INTERFET operation. Indeed, we are firmly supportive of and committed to any of our Australian troops that are serving overseas in various peacekeeping operations, whether they be in Bougainville, whether they be in the Middle East—it does not matter where. Whenever Australian serving men and women are overseas, we will support them. We will support them because, when governments of any political flavour take decisions involving Australia's defence and Australia's Defence Force, it is in the national interest to do so. Clearly, as I have said previously, as the Leader of the Opposition has said previously and as anyone on the Labor side has said previously, this decision to involve Australia's Defence Force in East Timor was right for all the proper humanitarian reasons.Last week I had the privilege of travelling to East Timor with the Leader of the Opposition; my colleague the shadow minister for foreign affairs, Laurie Brereton; and my colleague the member for the Northern Territory, Warren Snowdon, to see for ourselves exactly what was happening in that newly emerging nation state and to meet with many of Australia's serving men and women and other people in East Timor. I would like to thank the Prime Minister, the Minister for Defence, the Australian Defence Force and the Department of Defence for facilitating that visit.It was an extremely worthwhile one. It was a long day. It started at 7 in the morning and concluded at about 6 in the evening. During our visit to East Timor we went to Dili where we had the opportunity to meet with Major General Cosgrove and a number of people on his general staff. We met with refugees at the wharf who were being transported by the Navy's cat, HMAS Jervis Bay. We met Bishop Belo. We met with a number of men and women serving in different elements of Australia's Defence Force and who were based in Dili. We were, I think, the first, other than the INTERFET forces, to go to the enclave, and we travelled to Oe Cusse by Black Hawk helicopter. We met serving men and women there who had secured the peace. We travelled to HMAS Sydney where we met the ship's company, and we spoke with them about the job that they were doing. Back in Dili we met with Xanana Gusmao and other members of his organisation. Finally, we had the opportunity to travel to and inspect the hospital that had been reconstructed by the INTERFET forces and to talk to patients in the hospital. If nothing else, this provided me—and, I know, the Leader of the Opposition and my other travelling companions—with a clear, unequivocal view that the commitment and the dedication of Australia's serving men and women is there on show for all to see.I note newspaper commentary over the weekend that General Sheldon, the Chairman of the United States Joint Chiefs of Staff, who travelled to East Timor over that weekend, has praised Australia's operation, the work of INTERFET and the leadership that we have shown—as well he might. As has been indicated previously, this is the first time Australia has had the leadership of any overseas defence type operation. Not only did we show people that we could do it; we actually showed them how to do it. I think the ADF has learnt from the experience, and there will be a number of debriefings in subsequent months as we try to work through how things were done and what might be done better. I think everyone in this country would like to pay tribute to Major General Cosgrove and all the serving men and women who have participated, and place on the public record our gratitude for the fact that we have not suffered any casualties in the course of our deployment. We would also like to ensure that, in the minds of the Australian public, this is a commitment for the long haul. This is not something that will conclude in February when the INTERFET operation concludes and the UNTAET operation takes effect, because Australia's Defence Force still will be involved.I note that people have been saying that in the order of 1,500 Australian troops will be required as part of the peacekeeping Blue Helmet operation. I think that is an understatement; I think the likelihood is that between 2,000 and 2,200 troops will be necessary. Indeed, there is still a chance that an Australian will head the next phase—the establishment of a completely new country on Australia's doorstep. I, for one, would like to think an Australian will head that phase. I know that the United Nations has asked a number of our Asian colleagues to provide the leadership for that next phase. I think some concerns are being expressed by those Asian colleagues about their willingness to do so. If we are asked, Australia certainly stands ready. I think we should be asked. I think we provide extremely good leadership. I think we need somebody in the job who is as tough and as effective as Major General Cosgrove has been so that the next phase can continue.I have to say that that next phase—the reconstruction and the rebuilding of East Timor—will be an incredibly difficult task. What we saw in Dili and in Oe Cusse simply was myriad burnt-out shells of buildings. The hospital was reconstructed only because of what INTERFET forces were able to achieve in the first seven days. There are one or two other buildings that remain unscathed, but in the town of Dili and in Oe Cusse—and I understand it is the same in many other parts of East Timor—most buildings were torched by the departing TNI forces of Indonesia. I understand all the water buffalo and chickens were killed because they did not want anything left that would enable the East Timorese to rebuild their country. People are still living in what you could only describe as Third World conditions. Therefore, is it any wonder people in East Timor are pleading with this government not to forcibly repatriate those East Timorese refugees at this stage? It is not only because there is no shelter for them or because people are still relying on bottled water being distributed by INTERFET forces and others, and it is not only because the infrastructure is completely devastated in East Timor; it is also because it is the wet season.I note that today the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs has talked about moving some of the East Timor refugees to Sydney, and that is appropriate. I do not think we should force them home. I do not think we should give them a bag of rice and a blanket and say, `Thanks for coming but it is now time you returned home.' That is a very uncharitable approach. It is unsympathetic. I hope that the government and Mr Ruddock give serious reconsideration to that proposition because, as I say, from what we saw there it will be some considerable time before Dili and the other villages in East Timor will be in a fit state to welcome home those refugees.It is important when looking at the way in which funds here are to be distributed that we note that, of the $860 million specifically in defence, $431 million of that is for deployment, $135 million is for investment—and these are costs associated with upgrading and replacing capital equipment for the deployment—and $279 million is for expansion. The Prime Minister made some comment about raising two additional battalion groups and increasing the number from 4 to 6 and having an extra airfield defence squadron and therefore increasing the Defence Force size by 3,500. Finally, there is $15 million for capital use charge and also $60 million to be made available through this bill for Australia's contribution to the humanitarian reconstruction needs of East Timor and to support the establishment of UNTAET.We also note in passing that, when the United Nations does officially take responsibility in the next phase, something like one-third of those costs are likely to be reimbursed to Australia by the United Nations. But there are a couple of important points that need to be made about those figures. Indeed some misleading information is contained in the Prime Minister's statement. We are not really raising two additional battalions. What we are actually doing is finding personnel to go and fill in two existing battalions that have been gutted, so that we could have a deployable force with both the 1st and 3rd Battalions based out of Darwin and Townsville. What we are trying to do in fact—and what the Prime Minister's statement says we are seeking to do here—is to find additional people. That is right; we are, but it is not for raising new battalions. It is actually filling in the existing ones.We are also finding that the need to do that is going to change very much the budget figuring that this government has worked on, particularly in terms of the Defence Reform Program and the savings which it has foreseen and has spoken largely about in the past 12 months stemming from that Defence Reform Program and the Defence Efficiency Review. It is also going to change the budget parameters and the recruiting profile of Australia's Defence Force. Let me just remind the House that this government said that the Defence Reform Program would elicit $1 billion worth of savings in the Australian Defence Force, all of which would be redirected towards the pointy end of defence. I cannot think of anything that is more pointy than an overseas deployment of Australia's fighting men and women into hostile territory to secure and maintain peace.Have we seen one dollar of those projected savings from the Defence Reform Program directed to this effort? I pose that question because, when I was in East Timor talking to the troops, they said that it is all well and good for people back home to wrap themselves in the flag and talk about extra money being sent over there and what a great thing it is to have the troops there—and they want that support, can I say—but they want equipment. They want chest webbing and materials so that they clean their rifles, because they are in a terribly wet, humid environment and the equipment—not only rifles but also everything else that we have got there—requires a fairly sophisticated level of maintenance.They were saying to me that they have not seen too much evidence of the projected savings of the Defence Reform Program being directed to the sharper end of defence—to wit, their deployment into East Timor. I raise that as a genuine question of concern for the government, because the minister came in here in March and made a statement that the government was well on track and talked in terms of $250 million or maybe even closer to $500 million worth of savings that had already been obtained through the Defence Reform Program, with $1 billion being projected.Interestingly, of course, the cost of this deployment that we are debating here is pretty close to that $1 billion when you look at the defence department and AusAID budget that we are trying to improve through the debate on the bill before us today. So the question has to be genuinely and fairly asked. It has got nothing to do with whether we support the deployment or not. It is about the way in which the government funds this deployment. We can legitimately ask how much of the savings that were projected by the government through the Defence Reform Program have gone into this. In the Prime Minister's statement he talks about the method that is going to be employed to find the money to pay for our involvement in East Timor—to wit, the East Timor tax or the levy to go on top of Medicare for one year starting in July next year.Interestingly, in that statement that the Prime Minister makes, he says that there were no other ways in which this could be funded. Well, of course, that is not true either. As I have indicated, what about the projected savings for the Defence Reform Program? Secondly, something which the Treasurer has completely ruled out is touching the domestic surplus. We all know that if this government had not done the deal with the Democrats on the GST—which has the same start-up date as when this tax levy is going to come into effect—at additional cost to revenue projected in the budget, then the money would have been there and there would have been no need for the Timor tax to be applied. No-one in the government can dispute that. No-one in the Australian community can dispute that. But there is, nevertheless, a domestic surplus.The Prime Minister and the Treasurer are saying, `We are not prepared to touch that. We are not prepared also to go into a deficit circumstance for a period of time to pay for what we are doing.' But I put this to you: in all the planning that has gone on for Australia's involvement, surely someone must have been thinking about where the money would come from to pay for it. As I go around, people say to me, `Hang on; why is there additional money required for this deployment? Surely we would have been paying our soldiers anyway.' Yes, we were; but the simple fact is that not only are they being paid their normal rates of pay but there are specific allowances that have to be paid for deployment.Of course, the costs associated with equipment and the use of equipment and the transportation costs for fuel and maintenance associated with HMAS Jervis Bay or Sydney or flying the F111s or whatever and the Black Hawks are substantial. So the additional costs that are going to be covered by this legislation are realistic and real. To simply say that the money must have been allocated anyway is not true. But the question is this: when the government was looking at the deployment, following the referendum which voted overwhelmingly in support of East Timor becoming independent, and when the United Nations was considering the resolution about deploying a force, and when Australia was making offers about being involved and was being made leader of that force, surely somebody must have been sitting down with their calculator, trying to get some sort of an estimate of how much this would cost. We know that they were.We know that they were, because I was given a leaked document out of the Department of Defence where the minister had written to the Prime Minister giving some sort of a costing estimate of what it would be. Then, of course, when we asked the Prime Minister about that he said, `We've got no firm figures on this at the moment; we can't tell you.' Well in fact he did, as we have proved. He came into this House and said he had no firm figures on what it was likely to cost for the deployment in East Timor, and he had a letter from John Moore, the Minister for Defence, that actually told him how much it would be from the defence department's own estimates. So I think there is a little gamesmanship being played by the Prime Minister on this particular issue.I want to conclude by saying that I am concerned that much of Australia's defence policy in the debate we are going to have in the next six to nine months based on the development of a white paper on defence is going to be dictated to and by what I call the East Timor factor. I caution people against thinking that the debate we are going to have on defence in Australia and about Australia's defence needs into the next millennium in fact can entirely be based on East Timor, because it cannot.We must have a dose of realism to match the idealism that many people speak of when they talk of East Timor. The serving men and women there have done a fabulous job. We look forward to them returning home, but we cannot simply say that what we did in East Timor, for a variety of reasons, is how we might need to operate in the future. The simple fact is that we are at our maximum capability. We could not do anything else other than what we are doing in East Timor at the present time. If there were another regional conflict somewhere, we just could not do it because our entire capability and commitment is there. Hence the reason we are talking about increasing the size of the Army.Down the track we have to talk about issues like our relationship with Indonesia. We should not let it continue to flounder. It disturbs me greatly that the Prime Minister keeps on saying that he just does not have time to get on the telephone to talk to President Wahid, or that it will be at least February until the Minister for Foreign Affairs can get up to Indonesia to talk to them. We have to keep that dialogue going, and the broader defence questions about the next century, the white paper on how we are going to defend Australia and what other regional engagements we might get involved in, cannot simply be dictated to by the East Timor factor. (Time expired)11:24:0013040Thomson, Andrew, MPMr ANDREW THOMSONFB6WentworthLP10—This bill gives us an opportunity in the House to talk about some issues that surround some of the broader background to Australia's intervention in East Timor. In making these remarks, I wish to acknowledge the help I have had from reading carefully the text of a lecture given by Professor Tony Milner of the ANU entitled `What's left of engagement with Asia?' He gave this lecture on 26 November to the Institute of International Affairs and I recommend it to all my colleagues.In that he discusses what the intervention really means and points out that it perhaps demonstrated three things. First of all it demonstrated Australia's commitment to this region. Secondly, it demonstrated very clearly Australia's military expertise and, thirdly, it demonstrated our diplomatic effectiveness in assembling a coalition of Asian nations to participate with us in the INTERFET force. At the same time there were, of course, some negative ramifications from the action we took and we should be bold enough to acknowledge those and discuss them. First of all, there was much criticism of Australia in various parts of the Asian news media. There were some perceptions in certain quarters—somewhat extreme political quarters—that the action had elements of confrontation between Christian and Muslim societies. That, of course, is quite wrong, but nonetheless that perception is abroad in some strange places.Further, there was an idea being put about by some people who are probably innately hostile towards Australia that somehow or other the intervention in East Timor was a demonstration that we as a nation want to weaken Indonesia. Again, that is wrong. Also, we have to face up to the fact that there is a probability that East Timor will be what is called a client state of Australia, dependent on us for much of its aid, support and so forth, and that its being such a client state for a long time to come might cause difficulties between Australia and other of our Asian neighbours. I hope that is not the case, but we have to acknowledge the possibility. In general terms, when you think of what the ramifications of this action are for our relationships with the rest of the region, we should look first at where we are now. For example, you could say that over half of our exports go to Asia, 25 per cent of our immigration intake comes from East Asia and most of our overseas students and a great many of our tourists come from that part of the world. In a security sense, since the 1996 election the Howard government has done some excellent things towards expanding the political military agreements with a number of Asian countries, Vietnam and China to name just two. The discussions that take place underneath these agreements are very useful. Likewise, there has been excellent Australian participation in the ASEAN regional forum each year. You have to say that perhaps of all the so-called Western countries on earth, there is more expertise about Asian affairs in Australia's public service, academia, business community and community generally. We really have a very strong reality in the sense of our relationship with the region backed up by those things. However, something is under way out there in the region, post the economic crisis. We should not underestimate how hostile many Asian leaders, officials and business people feel about the memory of when those hedge funds attacked their currencies. There remains an undercurrent of suspicion that it was Western financial markets and institutions that allowed this to happen. This is not just Dr Mahathir speaking. He has certainly expressed that view very stridently from time to time, but he does express what a lot of Asian people in important positions feel. You have to say that he is a political leader who is very much in touch with public feeling.It seems to me that what is again growing out of this economic crisis, as Professor Milner described it, is a shared consciousness of Asia. That phrase was used by Japan's ambassador to Korea, who wrote an interesting article in an academic journal not so long ago. It may be the case, as Professor Milner points out, that, in the coming years, we Australians will face renewed cultural and maybe military assertiveness from parts of Asia. We have to be prepared to deal with that. In this context, it is reality that Australia is seen as part of that Western group of nations. Whilst we do a great deal of trading with the Asian region, financial markets are intimately linked with those in the United States, Britain and Europe.When talking about financial things, those contributions that we made have to be pointed out. As we were economically strong, we were able to give some financial support to some of our regional friends who needed it during that crisis. Those were necessary and, indeed, noble acts of this government. But, in that background, whilst they are acknowledged gratefully in parts of the region, they are not really celebrated perhaps as much as they should be.Our economic strength is a wonderful thing. It means that we no longer go around, if you like, begging for entry to our own neighbourhood, as we used to do under previous governments. We are a valuable part of the Asia-Pacific region, and we should be quite at ease with that status. At the same time, of course, we must not boast about our economic strength while our neighbours struggle to recover from wounds that many of them feel were inflicted on them with malice, not by Australia but by, if you like, those Western financial markets in general.Again, in the even broader background, there are other issues. There was the stir created in the region by Mrs Hanson and her One Nation Party. One hates to talk about the false perceptions, the false images, that the One Nation Party caused in the minds of our neighbours about Australia, but they are out there. I think time will heal them, but you still hear their echoes in places.Likewise, there was the no vote, so-called, the result of our referendum. This created false images of Australia being hopelessly tied to Britain via the monarchy. This is a nonsense, of course. Many people in Australia voted no without the slightest notion of connections to Britain in mind. They either did not like the model or really wanted to directly elect the President. So the perception that somehow or other the apron strings are still there between us and another country is false, but it is out there. You cannot avoid that.So I ask: does all this really matter? In a sense, what should we think or do about it? In terms of trade, I say very bluntly that the economy of this region, like the economy of the rest of the world, is changing very rapidly. It is going digital. If you are into technology, this really is the Messianic Age. We should always bear in mind our trading interests there.You could ask yourself: what is the biggest economic problem in Australia? Happily there are fewer now than in the past, but it would probably be the hollowing out of our regional or rural economy. The finding of gainful employment in some of our country towns is difficult, and the closing down of factories makes this very grim. The most effective remedy for that is to open new markets and to develop new businesses with, if possible, some kind of bias towards regional Australia to really do something about growing Australian incomes.In that sense, what we do in East Timor—what we have done and what we do hence—does potentially have an impact on our trading interests, which in turn is very important back at home. In terms of security, we must maintain our relationships, our alliances, those most constructive political military talks, that we undertake with some of our regional neighbours and just generally what I would call friendship. It has been pointed out, most notably by Paul Dibb and Des Ball, as Tony Milner says in his lecture, that, if Australia becomes embroiled in a lot of hostility, we will have to depend on a much higher level of defence spending in future to ensure our security. That is not a good thing.Above all, I argue that Australia's engagement with Asia should be a matter of national enthusiasm and national purpose. As my colleague the member for Parramatta, Ross Cameron, said not long ago, why should we not aim to be the world's most hospitable country? That is a very fine and noble aim, but it requires some kind of defined purpose. I say that we can actually choose to be cheerful about the Asian region.Stereotypes, I think, exist for looking beyond. If we want our neighbours to look beyond those stereotypes, those false images, of us, we are obliged to do the same, and we have to do a little more. Plainly, none of these aims or objectives can be achieved if our foreign policy is seriously at odds with our public opinion. You cannot build a church on soft ground; you need solid ground for that. Steadiness, above all, is really required now, along with a judicious increase in the attention we pay to these diplomatic and cultural goals in Asia.There are some decisions that will have to be made in the near future regarding our commitment in East Timor. The previous speaker, my friend the member for Cunningham and shadow minister for defence, raised the notion of whether or not in future the commander of the UN security force in East Timor should be an Australian. I must say I have some misgivings about that. I would prefer to see someone else from this region where a flavour is given to the presence there that is much more, if you like, at home with the needs of the Indonesian government. Their needs are very important for us. The difficulties they have with their regional make-up and political make-up within Indonesia—and I refer of course to the difficulties they are having in Aceh, Irian Jaya and other parts of the archipelago—are very important to Australia. The disintegration and the consequences of those for us here have not yet fully been debated or, I think, understood.In the short time that I served as parliamentary secretary for foreign affairs, I had charge of the aid agency, AusAID. I spent some time travelling in the western parts of Indonesia and elsewhere and certainly in Papua New Guinea. It struck me that, if government and the delivery of services break down in those places, as they largely have in rural Papua New Guinea, the spread of disease, especially the HIV virus, is extraordinarily rapid and it is very difficult to control once it has got out of hand. That is one example of the sort of problem that we do not want and that we should do what we possibly can to help avoid in our largest neighbour, that is, Indonesia. Hence, where we can judiciously give them some help in a political sense, I think it is very much in our own domestic interests to do so.Beyond that, I would like to add to the member for Cunningham's remarks by saying that I felt, I suppose like all of us did, very much for the families of those soldiers when they were first deployed in East Timor. What we had seen take place there before, the savagery of what had happened until the time that the TNI moved out, must have given some of those wives, husbands, parents, children and so forth some ghastly images in the still watches of the night about what might befall their loved ones. Happily, those things never came to pass. Therefore, there is, I suppose, great relief now among those families that the task has been achieved without harm coming to any of our members. I hope that remains the case.As soon as it is practical for more members of the parliament to be able to make the trip to East Timor, as some did the other day, and see for themselves how the reconstruction effort is taking place, all the better. We have a great role to play there, but we also have some very great national interests of our own at stake in the broader background to it.11:40:0013043Edwards, Graham, MPMr EDWARDS83RCowanALP00—I support the Appropriation (East Timor) Bill 1999-2000 and I support our troops in East Timor. I want to start by complimenting the member for Cunningham and the member for Wentworth on their very thoughtful contributions to this debate. I also want to compliment our troops on the very professional manner in which they are carrying out their tasks. Mind you, their being Australian soldiers, I would expect no less.This bill is designed in part to appropriate the necessary resources to ensure that our defence forces have the appropriate level of logistic support and to ensure that the aid program which supports our military involvement is put in place. I believe it is imperative that when we commit troops overseas we ensure that they have not only the moral support of the nation but also the resources to do the job. There are very few situations where you can commit troops in this era without committing to civil aid at the same time. Indeed, civil aid is an important humanitarian component in the occupational type of operation in which our troops are involved.Just as it is important for our troops to have the level of logistical support that is required to maintain them in the field, so too do they need support when they are wounded or otherwise physically hurt or psychologically affected during their active service or as a result of their active service. This support may be required for many years and is as much a legitimate cost of conflict as is the cost of the actual duration of the operations in which our troops are involved.Unfortunately, under this government our veterans are facing a two-pronged attack. Firstly, this government is making it much more difficult for younger veterans of the Vietnam, Gulf and Timor eras to access entitlements for which they are eligible. Secondly, under this government and under this Prime Minister, for the first time in our post Second World War history those benefits are being systematically and seriously eroded. But I will come back to these points at a later stage of my speech.In making my contribution to this debate I want to draw attention to Mrs Pat Jack and those members of the Kingsley Seniors Group from within my electorate who recently delivered some 150 Christmas presents to my electorate office. These presents were donated by members of the club and put together by about 20 helpers. The seniors individually wrapped each gift and labelled each parcel with the age and gender most suitable. These presents are destined for the youngsters in Timor. The seniors were very keen to have the presents handed out by our diggers as a gesture of goodwill and in the best tradition of friendship which our troops traditionally generate with the local kids.I approached RAAF Base Pearce to see whether they could transport these presents to Darwin and I contacted my old battalion—7 Battalion, now 5/7 Battalion—to see whether they would get the presents to Timor and have them distributed. I want to thank Group Captain Steven Walker and Flight Sergeant Glen Hindmarsh from Pearce and Lieutenant Cook and Sergeant Willoughby from 5/7 Battalion in Darwin for their very enthusiastic and generous support for this project. Collectively, these seniors and the service personnel involved have ensured that the spirit of Christmas will visit Timor this year. I am also sure that the CO of 5/7 Battalion will be pleased to have his troops play Father Christmas to those many children who are displaced yet so trusting of the Australians who serve in Timor.No doubt our troops will miss their own families most acutely at Christmas. I am sure too that their families here in Australia will miss them and probably celebrate a subdued Christmas in the absence of their loved ones. I take this opportunity to wish our forces in East Timor and their families back home in Australia a peaceful and safe Christmas.When troops are sent overseas it is usually with great fanfare and much handshaking and flag waving. Certainly this Prime Minister has made a meal of that. What saddens me, however, is that, while he has wrapped him self in the flag over East Timor, he has at the same time been active in stripping those same veterans, along with those of Vietnam and the Gulf, of benefits which they and their families justly deserve. To illustrate this point, I want to quote from a letter from Tim McCombe, the national President of the Vietnam Veterans Federation, which came just days after the government released further validation details of the male Vietnam veterans' health studies. The letter also makes note of the fact that, following the passage of the government's veterans entitlements legislation last week, service pensions will be much harder to obtain by those veterans I just mentioned. The letter is dated 5 December and is addressed to the Prime Minister under the heading `For a Start: Agent Orange Guilty':About two years ago, evidence compiled by the US Academy of Science provided suggestive evidence of a link between exposure to Agent Orange and the birth abnormality, Spina bifida. The US government, on this suggestive evidence, accepted that the Vietnam veterans' exposure to Agent Orange may well have caused their children's birth abnormality and provided generous compensation in the form of pensions, scholarship and medical treatment.Your government, though advised of these developments by the veteran community, continued to refuse to accept responsibility.Now your own government's study shows conclusively that Vietnam veterans' children suffer a significantly higher incidence of Spina bifida than the general community. The study also shows the incidence of another birth defect, cleft palate and lip, to be higher.Surely you can no longer hold on to the fiction that the spraying of those 12 million gallons of Agent Orange and other herbicides as well as countless gallons of other toxic chemicals during the Vietnam war has not caused the suffering of these children and the consequent anguish of their parents.And these children are victims of the spraying of Agent Orange in Vietnam just as surely as their veteran fathers are who have contracted certain types of cancer. Their cancer suffering fathers can be compensated for these war caused disabilities under the provisions of the Veterans Entitlement Act. As the children's Spina bifida and cleft palate and lip are just as surely caused by the war, the Act should be amended to include the children. The children have waited many years for recognition and compensation. Please do not make them wait any longer.AND, AS THE STUDY SHOWS, birth defects are not the only problem Vietnam veterans' children suffer. They have three times the suicide rate than would be expected and they have a significantly higher death rate from illness and accidents than the general community.. . . . . . . . .The Minister . . . refused to act. He protested that the study's findings had to be verified.It is now three years after our original submission, three years of who knows how many suicides and how much suffering, and the submission has been supported by your verified data.. . . . . . . . .This 20 years of official denial must come to an end and action be taken.You said on TV Sunday Programme words to the effect that whatever is done `must be within the constraints of the budget'. You are saying that what you are prepared to do to fix this problem is limited by your budget philosophy. Contrast this with the unlimited price that every serviceman and woman had to be prepared to pay as they were sent off to war in Vietnam. Not for them to say, "I'll go only if the price I pay can be limited to a soft flesh gunshot wound or some minor wounding from the shrapnel from an exploding RPG 7 rocket. I certainly won't go if I could get killed." Not for them to say, "I'll go if you can guarantee the price I pay will not include the life destroying effects of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder or the horror of cancer." No. The risks run by those who went were unlimited so the price they might be forced to pay was unlimited.Yet, you, Prime Minister, talk of a limited response to these tragic consequences to those who risked all.. . . . . . . . .It is of concern that at a time when it is clear that Vietnam veterans are an unwell group that you have made the Invalid Service Pension much harder to obtain.. . . . . . . . .And it is not just Vietnam veterans who will suffer because of you dramatically toughening the eligibility criteria for the Invalid Service Pension.There is an alarming number of Gulf War veterans falling sick. Much of their sickness cannot be definitely linked with their war service so they may not be entitled to a compensatory disability pension. But, because of the magnitude of the problem, it's almost certain their illness and consequent unemployability has got something to do with the Gulf War. Yet they will now find it much harder to be eligible for the Invalid Service Pension and many will have to go to Social Security where they will receive less beneficial treatment.We also note that, despite the evidence of a sick veteran community, the Department of Veterans' Affairs is involved in two court cases in an attempt to increase the severity of the test for compensation for war caused illnesses; a more severe test which would dishonour the promises of successive Australian governments.EVEN THE ALARMING RESULTS of this study do not seem to move your government. So far it has refused to take immediate action preferring to await the more comfortable processes of next year's budget. Meanwhile many Vietnam veteran families are far from comfortable.Please take action now.That letter is signed by Tim McCombe, the national President of the Vietnam Veterans Federation. In addition to that letter, this parliament was also recently treated to a protest visit by Vietnam and Gulf War veterans from the Hunter region of New South Wales. In a letter to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, they said:It is because of the reaction of our veteran community over these changes—that is, the changes to the Veterans Entitlement Act—that has prompted us to deliver a message personally to the Government and that is NO further detrimental changes to the Act should be considered by this or any future Government.A clear and positive message should be sent to the present ex-service community and to any future recipients of its entitlements and benefits (namely our forces currently serving in East Timor). That the future of this act will remain certain and intact, for the protection and well being of veterans and ex-service people.That letter is signed by Colin Harden, Secretary of the Newcastle and Hunter Region Vietnam Veterans. Did the government listen to the veterans from the Hunter, who are not just concerned about their own situation but that of the returning East Timor veterans? Clearly not. Has the government acted on the health concerns that Vietnam veterans have for the children? Clearly not. I have another letter from Clive Mitchell-Taylor, National President of the Vietnam Veterans' Associa tion of Australia, which states that the validation report:. . . also confirmed the higher incidence (when compared with the general Australian population) of spina bifida and cleft lip/palate in the children of Vietnam veterans. The suicide rate in the children is triple the expected rate, deaths by accidents are double the normal rate and deaths from illness are above the norm.The Government response to this is to institute a demographic study of the suicides and to consider other responses in the light of the budget—in May 2000! We fail to see how this will address the problems of those who children who will die between now and May.There are inferences in this response for our Timor people, as they can have no confidence that there will be any action should anything occur that affects THEIR children. Every major conflict since WW2 has exposed Australian service personnel to agents of (initially) unknown origin, with effects well outside the mainstream medical fraternity's ability to understand or properly treat.. . . . . . . . .The VVAA would appreciate your support, particularly should you be prepared to ask the PM and Minister Scott in the Parliament just how they propose to address the issue of the more than 100,000 young Australians who have been clearly identified as being at extreme risk of suicide. We cannot wait until May.My information from within DVA is that they have already coordinated with the Youth Suicide Taskforce . . . but this has not resulted in any tangible outcomes whatsoever. We would like to see, as an absolute minimum:. a pamphlet/brochure aimed specifically at this group distributed through the 42,000 plus veteran fathers who have already been identified in the original study and through the VVCS;. advice to parents in identifying children who are specifically at risk; and. a better response than simply identifying the VVCS as the contact/treatment point.The VVCS is for veterans, and I really doubt that they are resourced to handle this problem or specifically equipped with the skills to relate to young Australians when their previous focus has been on veterans.That is signed by Clive Mitchell-Taylor, National President of the Vietnam Veterans Association of Australia.I want to pose the question: what is the government going to do? I think the minister ought to come into this House, answer some of these questions and put the minds of veterans and of their spouses and children at rest. To make this group of Australians, many of whom are already stressed, wait until after the budget of the year 2000, by which time the government will have counted its pennies, is a cruel and unnecessary money saving tactic. I note that the Prime Minister is not waiting until the budget process to ascertain whether he and his gravy train should go to London to visit the Queen. Why should our Vietnam veterans and their families have to wait?The other group of veterans who will also have to wait an extended period are those who served in the Gulf. I first raised their concerns in the House in the early months of this year. In response to some follow-up questions this week, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs confirmed that the government's health study, not yet started, will not conclude until December 2000. We can assume from the experience of Vietnam veterans that any budgetary provision would not be made until the budget process in the year 2001. No wonder the veteran community is becoming restless. In the meantime, the government refuses to treat veterans for Gulf War illness.The other two areas which I want to briefly touch on relate to issues central to the wellbeing of our veterans. Firstly, it is now apparent that legal aid for veterans has been well and truly cut by this government, despite certain guarantees given by the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and the Attorney-General that this would not happen. I have a table which shows the breakdown state by state for the financial years 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99. The table shows that legal aid expenditure has been cut from $4.4 million in 1996 to $3.36 million in the financial year of 1998-99. Legal aid is important for veterans who have to fight their department, sometimes in my view unfairly, in order to get a fair claim heard.The other table I have relates to the veterans' disability pensions in Australia from 1970 to 1999. This table confirms that under the Howard government the real value of the special rate, the intermediate rate and the general rate of pension for veterans has decreased the T&PI pension by some $19 per fortnight since 1996. So much for this government's claim to the veteran community that it would honour the dead and fight for the living. It is no wonder that Vietnam and Gulf veterans are having to fight for benefits, which the government is stripping away by stealth.There is much unrest in our veteran community. I think the government will ignore that unrest at its peril. I support this appropriation legislation, but I urge the government to start to treat our veterans with some honesty, decency and respect. Someone interjected to say that this debate is about Timor. The speech I have made is very much about Timor. It is very much about the veterans whom we are calling on to fight the fight in East Timor. If we are going to commit troops overseas and if we are going to commit money to troops to do the job, then in my view we must also be prepared to commit the necessary resources to look after those troops when they come home and to ensure that, for the rest of their lives, if they have suffered as a result of their service, they are properly and fully repatriated by the government of the day. I support the appropriation bill, and I seek leave to have a couple of the tables to which I have referred incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The tables read as follows—WAR VETERANS LEGAL AID EXPENDITUREState1996/1997 Financial Year1997/1998 Financial Year1998/1999 Financial YearNew South Wales 1,063,123.21972,867.39716,588.54Victoria1,740,975.701,449,334.011,269,418.18Queensland 1,345,118.221,321,971.181,235,512.00South Australia 114,866.76104,005.2138,481.21Western Australia 49,987.0135,241.9233,808.24Tasmania 81,679.6172.084.1064,384.80Northern Territory 8,522.652,909.201,866.20ACTNilNilNilTOTAL4,404,273.163,958.413.013,360,059.17Veterans' Disability Pension: Australia, 1970 to 1999($ per fortnight)Special rateIntermediate RateGeneral rate (100%)30 JuneActualReal(a)ActualReal(a)ActualReal(a)197072.00507.7053.00373.7024.00169.20197178.00523.1057.00382.3024.00161.00197289.00560.3062.50393.5024.00151.101973102.20594.9073.10425.5032.00186.301974120.20610.4082.10416.9044.00223.401975136.20591.8096.10417.6056.00243.301976157.70612.00108.60421.4059.60231.301977180.30616.30124.20424.6068.10232.801978197.10623.60135.70429.4074.40235.401979203.80593.10140.30408.3076.90223.80 1980233.80613.80160.90422.4088.20231.601981255.30616.50175.70424.3096.30232.601982284.10619.40195.60426.40107.10233.501983315.50619.00217.30426.30119.00233.501984342.60646.40236.90447.00129.20243.801985351.50622.30242.00428.40132.60234.801986380.60621.20262.00427.70143.50234.201987418.00624.50287.80430.00157.60235.401988447.30623.70308.00429.50168.60235.101989481.50624.10331.60429.80181.50235.301990518.80624.60357.30430.20195.60235.501991554.10645.10381.70444.40209.00243.301992562.40646.80387.40445.50212.10243.901993571.70657.50394.50453.70216.90249.401994582.60657.80402.00453.90221.00249.501995597.20662.70412.10457.30226.50251.301996627.40666.30433.00459.80238.00252.701997636.80653.80439.60451.30241.60248.001998636.80649.40439.60448.30241.60246.401999645.10650.90445.30449.30244.70246.901999—Sept.647.00647.00446.60446.60245.40245.40(a) Actual rates adjusted by the Consumer Price Index, all groups, eight capital cities, base 1989-90 = 100.0.Source: Department of Veterans' Affairs, Consumer Price Index, Australia , various (ABS 6401.0).11:58:0013048Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMANSD4MitchellLP10—For about 25 years, the relationship between Indonesia and Australia with regard to East Timor has been chequered. It has been a pathway that has sometimes caused tension and great difficulty between the two countries. From 1974 to 1975, the Indonesian government made the assumption that Australia had no difficulty with and did not oppose the integration of East Timor into Indonesia. That was during the time of the Whitlam government. The Fraser government recognised in a de facto manner and in a de jure manner the fact that East Timor was part of Indonesia. In 1984 and 1985, the Hawke government recognised Indonesian sovereignty over East Timor. In 1989, the Timor Gap Zone of Cooperation Treaty was signed between Indonesia and Australia for the development of resources in the Timor Gap.More recently, on 27 January 1999 Dr Habibie advised that there would be a revised approach to the future of East Timor. Eventually, the government of Indonesia agreed that the East Timorese people should have the opportunity of expressing by ballot a preference for their future—whether they should remain part of Indonesia or whether they should become separate and independent.The House will remember that the original date of 8 August 1999 was postponed and that the ballot of the people of East Timor took place on 30 August 1999 after two postponements. The UN Assistance Mission for East Timor, with significant Australian support, was involved in the supervision and monitoring of that decision of the East Timorese people. On 4 September this year, the United Nations announced the result of the referendum—a 78.5 per cent vote in favour of independence. At that point, the pro-Indonesian militia began a rampage of violence in East Timor.On 6 September, two days later, the home of the Nobel Prize winner Bishop Carlos Belo was burnt, and Bishop Belo fled to Darwin. Most of the foreign press left East Timor. Four or five days later, APEC ministerial heads of government in Auckland had consultations with President Habibie. Finally, President Habibie agreed to accept a UN security force in East Timor. This is fast moving stuff: day after day from 30 August something was happening. On 14 September the remaining UNAMET staff, those responsible for the supervision of the referendum on independence—who were sheltering in the compound in Dili—were evacuated from East Timor to Darwin. On 15 September, the Security Council authorised the establishment of an interim multinational force in East Timor preparatory to a formal UN peacekeeping mission to East Timor and a UN transitional administration.On 6 September, Indonesia cancelled a 1995 bilateral security pact with Australia. On 20 September, the first contingent of the Australian led and largely Australian staffed International Force for East Timor arrived in Dili. This is fast moving action, and I think most Australians feel we played a competent and professional role. The leadership of our military was above what we hoped for. The modesty and the strength with which the process was conducted fulfilled the aspirations of Australians.I want to pay tribute to the men and women involved in the Australian forces in all aspects of the development. Last Sunday I had an opportunity to meet many at RAAF Base Richmond, which is just outside the electorate of Mitchell but which for a long time was part of the electorate of Mitchell, and to see the boost in morale and attitude and the pride—but not false pride—with which Australian service men and women conduct themselves. The House will realise the transport element supplied by the RAAF was a most significant part of the whole operation.Every Australian shared in the aspiration to see people who have been oppressed set free from that oppression and to see Australia play a competent role in helping that process but not become entangled in the processes of a protracted diplomatic, or more serious, confrontation with the government of Indonesia. That has not happened. It was touchy and it could have been difficult, but we were able to manage it. This House today is acknowledging that, and the Australian people have acknowledged that and will acknowledge that both in voluntary effort and in a more substantial way as we come to look at the cost of the process.We can be pretty proud of our nation. The commitment to human rights is universal in this chamber, the commitment to democratic processes cannot be swept aside by the executive of the parliament and freedom from oppression and persecution remains a high ideal in every Australian heart. Today, the recent history of East Timor in some ways fulfils the aspirations of every Australian. However, despite the short-term benefit of a claim to independence, much of the shaking off of the last remnant of Indonesian control of East Timor, the establishment of a civil authority and the development of democratic processes still has to be faced.There will be a continuing cost to the people of Australia and to the United Nations as well. The government has estimated the extra defence cost—the redeployment forces and the raising of two new full-time battalions and additional Air Force numbers—which is necessary both to pay for what we have done and to make sure that in future we are not stretched to quite the same capacity and that, if there are occurrences of a similar nature in our region, we will be well prepared, to be $907 million this financial year, $1.089 billion in 2000-01 and $901 million in the year 2001-02. This is a very substantial cost for our defence effort.This is taken up in the cost of maintenance, purchasing equipment and recruiting new people, and the extra costs of deploying people and paying for the terms of their service in a combat zone. So there is a cost, and in the House today we are looking at that cost and how it should be paid for. The cost, as I indicated, runs to about $1 billion per year over the next three years. In addition to paying for the replacement of spares, for equipment and machinery that have been damaged or lost, for the allowances that are payable and, perhaps—as my friend the honourable member for Cowan from across the chamber said—for the repatriation of people who may retire from the services because of their action in Timor, we have the delivery times for new projects and minor equipment, infantry purchases and other replacements that, while they will be ordered this year, will result in payments being spread over a number of years. The Air Force has absorbed a significant part of its additional rate of effort, but it does require supplementation for equipment repairs and replacements next year. Part of the ADF's salary costs and other personnel related costs, such as housing, in this financial year are for additional personnel required for force generation. The cost estimates assume that these additional personnel will be recruited from January 2000.So what is the scale of the government's proposals to make these changes? They can be best summarised as follows. The fully operational infantry battalions will increase from four to six by bringing to combat readiness an additional two full-time Army battalion groups: 4 RAR based at Holsworthy and 6 RAR based at Enoggera in Brisbane. The additional full-time battalion groups will offer the government and the nation more flexibility when `responding to contingency'—and I quote the Minister for Defence, John Moore, in making that comment. The Army's combat strength will increase by 3,000 personnel to a total of 26,000 full-time personnel and the Air Force strength will increase by 555 personnel to a total of 13,555 personnel to allow for additional combat support personnel and the raising of an additional airfield defence squadron. It is expected that the Enoggera 6 RAR will be ready for operation by the end of February 2000, so things are well on the way. The regular and reserve unit at Enoggera will therefore be ready for action within roughly three months from today. It is planned to develop the 4 RAR and the support elements at Holsworthy as a full-time commando unit and battalion. I understand that that will be fully operational by June next year.Bringing in reservists and additional new personnel is something that the defence services are focusing on at the moment. Already more than 630 reservists have volunteered for full-time service in the affected units. The increase in Air Force numbers will be used for the new airfield defence squadron and the 400 personnel for a combat support group. The raising of these additional personnel is of great interest to the House and to all of those people who wish to see an expansion to our defence effort. I want to quote in this instance, for the benefit of the House, Colonel Duncan Lewis. In an interview on 24 November, he said:Now, we have a large number of reservists who are coming into the defence force. You've seen that in the last few weeks. They have, in some cases, quite substantial levels of training already. There are some ex-servicemen who are coming back into the force who have substantial levels of training. And then, of course, there are new recruits and they will take longer than the previous two categories to train up to operational readiness.In that interview, he further says that the general length of time for complete combat readiness is approximately nine months—although some will not require as long as that to be trained.The Howard government has been careful in its decision to raise the roughly $1 billion a year over the next three years for these purposes and it has said that we cannot go into the red to do so. Australians must be prepared to make a one-off payment and to do that by a slight increase in taxation. I will seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table prepared by the Treasury regarding the impact of a one per cent levy on salaries above $50,000. To give the House some idea of the changes, the levy for a person on $60,000 is roughly $5.75 per week. The tax cut that the new tax system will provide them with is approximately $61.80 per week. So their net gain from the tax cut, with the levy subtracted from it, is $56.04.The benefits for those with a salary of $60,000 plus will be approximately $53 to $54 per week, despite the raising of a levy ofone per cent against salaries of that range. However, for those salaries over $100,000, there is a lesser benefit from the cut in taxation as well as an increased penalty as the one per cent is imposed. So the net benefit to those on salaries of $125,000 and greater is approximately $33 to $37 per week. So there is substantial benefit, but still we are paying for it as we go. I now seek leave to incorporate this table in Hansard .Leave granted.The table read as follows—**Information as supplied by the Treasurer's press release no. 78 titled, `Defence-East Timor Levy', 23 November, 1999**IncomeDefence-East Timor Levy (Weekly)ANTS Income Tax Cut (Weekly)Net Tax Cut in 2000-01 (Weekly)$50,000$0.00$52.21$52.21$60,000$5.75$61.80$56.04$70,000$6.71$61.80$55.08$80,000$7.67$61.80$54.12$90,000$8.63$61.80$53.16$100,00$9.59$61.80$52.21$125,000$23.97$61.80$37.82$150,000$28.77$61.80$33.03SD4Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMAN—I thank the House. Finally, in defence of the Commonwealth government, the Howard government, I will just cover quickly some of the attitudes that have been expressed. In the 1996-97 budget, administrative costs were reduced by $125,000 and those funds redirected to the pointy end of Defence. So there was an administrative saving. The Defence Reform Program was put in place and further resources of approximately $1 million per annum were redirected. That process realised a one-off saving of $500 million. Those resources were redirected to capability enhancement, preparedness and personnel costs.So, even from the beginning of this government coming into office, there was a preparation to make sure that Defence could deliver what Defence was supposed to deliver, and there was the decision by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Defence earlier this year in January to put defence personnel on alert, saying, `You guys need to be ready; something may blow up in our region.' So the intelligence information was sound. The preparation in budgetary terms was there from day one when this government first came to office. The capability development was attended to. There were major project approvals which covered things like the Hornet upgrade, the Joint Command Support System, the F111 electronic countermeasures, the life extension of the ADF field vehicles, the life extension of the C130 Hercules and the life extension of the amphibious landing craft. All those things were attended to.I want to congratulate the ministers involved and the government in general for being careful about the security of Australia. Australians can feel a great deal of confidence when decisions are made that have a focused and well thought through direction which will secure the future of this nation by making sure that our defence systems are planned to deliver the services that they are designed to deliver. With the assistance of voluntary help now being appealed for through churches and other organisations, the professionalism of the Australian men and women in the defence forces can be secured. (Time expired)12:18:0013052Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—Given that the Appropriation (East Timor) Bill 1999-2000 is for East Timor and related purposes, I wish to take the opportunity to speak rather broadly on the issue of East Timor but particularly on the way that the government has decided to fund our commitment. I want to start by making some comments about how the electorate of Calare has responded to this issue. I have to say that there are few issues in contemporary times that have evoked as much interest and concern in Calare than the East Timor one. From the day things started to deteriorate following the overwhelming referendum result, my electorate office was inundated with calls for the government to take urgent action. In the towns of Bathurst and Orange, East Timor support groups were formed, candlelight vigils and peace rallies were held, and petitions were signed and sent to the government.At a candlelight vigil held in Machattie Park, Bathurst, on Wednesday, 9 September, a gathering of about 200, brought together in less than two days, overwhelmingly supported a series of resolutions. The gathering expressed its despair for the embattled people of East Timor and called for the Australian government to take immediate action to restore peace and democracy. It is important that some of the meeting's resolutions be recorded in the Hansard because, if one thing was clear from the process surrounding the East Timor crisis, it was the frustration of ordinary people not feeling they had any say or influence or method to contribute to the political decision making process. I think these resolutions accurately reflected the sentiments of not only those in attendance but much of the wider Calare community.Included among 16 resolutions was that Australia should call for suspension of the IMF assistance to Indonesia. I will go on and say why perhaps that is not the wisest course of action. Nevertheless, that sentiment is very much out there, and people do question the benefit of the assistance that has been pumped into Indonesia in the last 12 months and where, if any, signs of the benefit of that large commitment are in evidence.Another resolution was that Australia should revoke its de jure recognition of Indonesia's sovereignty over East Timor. I guess in the events that occurred that happened by default anyway. But I think many out there in the community felt that the recognition back in 1978 was in many ways waving a white flag to Indonesia in terms of its activities in East Timor over the years and it was incumbent upon us to express our rejection of that recognition at some point prior to the vote of independence.With those resolutions there also was expressed a belief that the Indonesian government had failed to fulfil its responsibility to maintain security during the transition to independence. There was a call for the suspension of Australia's remaining military ties with Indonesia and support for calls for international institutions to suspend all financial assistance to Indonesia.Another resolution called for the restoration of ABC funding to reopen the Cox Peninsula transmitter and resume broadcasting Radio Australia. This again is an issue which has come to the fore and which many claim could have helped us in our public relations exercise, if you like, with it being interpreted in parts of Asia that we were dictating in some sort of a colonialist fashion, in a patronising way to not only Indonesia but South-East Asia in general that we knew best what should happen up there. I think, justifiably or not, there was some feeling that had we had a better line of communication—and Radio Australia was certainly a very well accepted means of doing that—we could have obviated some of those difficulties.The other call that was of note was to suspend military aid, cooperation, support and links to Indonesia. We have come a long way in the three months since that vigil in Machattie Park in Bathurst. While some of the resolutions of that meeting, such as sending peacekeepers and aid, are being satisfied, many of them have not. But I must say I cannot support calls for any suspension of aid to Indonesia in the wake of the East Timor tragedy.While IMF funding has raised many questions throughout Australia about its efficacy, after all the poorer people are the ones who suffer when inevitably such support is not made available. I think it is more about the way this funding is used and who is being supported—is it just the financial institutions and the haves of these countries who ultimately benefit by the processes? Are we propping up corruption? These are the questions people want answered. That is why, as I said in the debate on the $1 billion assistance program for Indonesia through the IMF, it is not good enough for the Treasurer of the day just to sign off on it with the nod of support from the opposition; these issues should be tabled and debated before such assistance is granted. People ask: why do we give aid to Indonesia? You have only to look at the material provided by the government and AusAID to see why. The aid is used in preventing malnutrition in 110,000 babies in rural areas; helping poor people to stay in school; and providing safe, clean water to 400,000 people on the island of Flores. At present half the population of Indonesia do not have access to basic health care. For all those reasons, because Australia is a good neighbour, we should continue to maintain our aid program to Indonesia. I am certain that whatever government is in place here will recognise that.There have been criticisms of the lack of haste in getting aid workers and peacekeepers on the ground in East Timor. I believe this criticism is justified to some extent, although the Minister for Foreign Affairs does correctly point out that the processes were put in place in record time by normal standards. It is those normal standards that need to be speeded up, particularly as we saw what happened so tragically in East Timor.We still do not know the extent of the atrocities. We have found a certain number of bodies. One of the areas of grave concern is the delay in getting forensic investigators onto the ground in East Timor in the wake of the attacks by the militia and reportedly Indonesian forces on the innocent East Timorese who dared argue for independence. We must not allow the war crimes of East Timor to go unpunished. Some of the perpetrators may now wear other clothes but they cannot change their spots.Sadly, the evidence of the extent of the atrocities has quickly rotted or been washed away, it has been buried and decayed and the footprints of terror and mayhem have been dusted over by three months of delay and a lack of resources. But that is no reason for not pursuing anecdotal evidence and supporting the process in whatever way we can, including providing voluntary forensic and legal expertise, to ensure these crimes are investigated. Amongst that aid we are providing for East Timor, one would hope that a substantial amount finds its way towards such investigation. If not, we should look at a special category of assistance to ensure that sufficient provision is made so that investigation can be conducted as fully and thoroughly as is now possible in the period since the post-referendum mayhem.Those of us who heard Xanana Gusmao in this place several months ago speak to a parliamentary gathering on the need to forgive in order to press ahead in establishing a peaceful new country could not have failed to be impressed by the generosity of this man. He said that he wants the country to rebuild its soul and he wants to see his people smile again. Xanana also asks that a process similar to South Africa's Truth and Justice Commission be set up so that those who have committed crimes can acknowledge their guilt. Again, some of the aid funding should be earmarked for this special purpose. No more—the ultimate reconciliation from a man who fought the savagery of the Indonesian occupation for more than 20 years and who stands ready to lead the independent East Timor in the forgiving conciliatory manner of a Nelson Mandela.While I am of the view that better contingencies could have been put in place, I think the government and the UN acted as quickly as they could have in the circumstances that unfolded. But, tragically, that was all too slow. This bill will commit $920 million for the current financial year to cover our peace keeping and aid efforts. The amount of $800 million will go to the Department of Defence—a very necessary boost to our defence and peacekeeping capabilities—and the other $60 million to AusAID. It is a pity that the $1 billion could not all go to the restructure and aid program. The best means of defence must surely be a forward offering of help and assistance and peacekeeping to areas of our sphere of influence. That sort of building of bonds is surely a better investment than a lot of weaponry and hardware and sabre rattling because, as a small nation, we do not have the resources nor do I believe the will to embark on that trail.We know that the outlays will be recovered by another one-off increase in the Medicare levy. Some comment must be made on this method of paying for our East Timor commitment. While I have received a number of calls from constituents critical of the levy and advocating the view that we should be fixing up our hospitals, schools, roads and our own problems—charity begins at home is the common line—before we dish out billions of dollars to East Timorese, I do not accept that at all. I tell those people that and point out just what a commitment we owe to the country to our immediate north.But I think it is fair to say the electorate supports these efforts and they understand they have to be paid for somehow. That is why I have supported the additional tax. But I have also advocated it should not be a one-off; it should be a permanent addition to the Medicare levy, left there after we end our East Timor commitment—and that could be many years down the track—and then injected where it is needed, particularly into the health system. I have to also say if the government had not brought in its regressive GST with such massive tax cuts targeted to those on higher incomes, it would never have had to impose this additional tax. We have heard the former Commissioner of Taxation say there was $21 billion in avoided tax out there in the community. With a bit of will and cunning we could have gathered a lot of it in. I know there have been some moves made, but it is a long way short of recovery.If surpluses were such, we could have funded the effort as well as injected desperately needed funds into our hospitals, higher education system and schools. What the Timor tax does is take back from those on higher incomes some of the tax cuts they should not have been offered in the first place. While in place, it will make the new tax system a little more equitable than it would otherwise have been.I must comment here on the government's capital gains tax reforms. I have previously criticised the Labor opposition for its capitulation on this issue, its sell-out of what I thought its principles were meant to be. This is relevant to this bill, because the way we tax and the amount we tax is directly related to the amount we can spend on things such as East Timor. Unlike the Labor Party, I have not been swayed by the rhetoric of the government on the capital gains tax changes. If capital gains tax is such a disincentive for investment and, conversely, low capital gains tax such an attractor of investment, why wasn't Australia before 1985—when we were one of the only industrialised countries not to have a capital gains tax—an international hub of investment?Capital gains tax is simply one of a number of factors taken into account when making an investment decision. Wage costs, stable government, location, property prices, infrastructure—these things have just as much of an influence on real investment decisions as concessional capital gains tax treatment. Taxing capital gains favourably, as proposed, is—and let us be clear on this—really just another way of giving a tax cut to those on high incomes, who had their GST package cuts brought back into line by the Democrats. What it will surely do is introduce distortions into the tax system, encourage speculation in non-productive investments, such as in shares and property, and encourage negative gearing.As for East Timor, can there really be any doubt—when one analyses the crisis there—of the need for Australia to help, as it has through the funding provided in this bill? While applauding the efforts of our forces in East Timor, I must just make a brief comment on our largely forgotten peacekeepers in Bougainville. We cannot forget these service men and women, who—judging from comments I have received in the last few days from several constituents in the Lithgow area who are related to service personnel in Bougainville—are feeling more than a little isolated with the concentration of so much publicity and even praise, which cannot be discounted, for the efforts of our people in East Timor. They are feeling a little lonely and isolated in this whole process. I would suggest a Christmas visit to those troops by one or other of our ministers related to that particular matter may not be such a bad idea.While we should always question the priorities of our foreign aid program, there can surely be no doubt of the need for us and the other affluent countries of the world to meet the urgent needs of rebuilding East Timor. In Xanana Gusmao's words, the East Timorese are:. . . starting from below zero. We are minus what little basic infrastructure we could have inherited, and we are minus almost all of our settled population. But what my country—he says—may lack in material resources is far outweighed by the resourcefulness of my people.A resourcefulness demonstrated in every stage, I must say, of the struggle of the past 24 years. He says:. . . our people's qualities of resilience, courage and discipline are not enough for our nation to be prosperous. Long-term sustainable development demands good governance and much needed capital investment, skills and expertise.I can think of no better words than those to commend this bill to the House.12:35:0013055Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—I speak with some knowledge on the Appropriation (East Timor) Bill 1999-2000 , because the area that I represent in Townsville and Thuringowa has Australia's largest ADF base. I have some 5,500 men and women in the Australian Defence Force in my electorate at Lavarack Barracks and at RAAF Townsville. I have been very privileged to see what those men and women have done in supporting Australia's involvement in East Timor. Right from the very start I have seen the planning and the logistics, the thousand and one small details that need to be attended to and the costs involved in attending to those not inconsequential details.I certainly am aware—from my perspective and from my city—where many of those expenses that this bill addresses in the parliament today have come from. For example, some 2,500 to 3,000 foreign troops went through RAAF Townsville for acclimatisation training. The battle school in Townsville under Lieutenant Colonel Bruce Scott was charged with the responsibility of the orderly processing of those people, for housing them, for providing sustenance for them and for providing the facilities so that they could acclimatise before going to East Timor.It was a huge effort. RAAF Townsville became a tent city. I think that we captured and hired every last four-wheel drive in North Queensland and all of the facilities that are needed to support so many extra people at the RAAF base. Certainly also at Lavarack Barracks the logistics involved in moving the 2nd Battalion of the Royal Australian Regiment—part of Australia's ready deployment force—were just enormous. The units that moved with that battalion all through Darwin to Timor did so at enormous cost.Many of the units that are involved in Timor come from Townsville, and I refer first of all to the 2nd Battalion under Lieutenant Colonel Mick Slater. I also refer to 3 CER, the Combat Engineer Regiment from Townsville, which is there doing civil works. I refer to 4th Field Regiment; to 5 Aviation Regiment, which is the Black Hawk regiment; and of course to 10 FSB, the Force Support Battalion, which provides the logistics. I should also mention 3 BASB, the administrative support battalion, which provides medical facilities and transport facilities. They are all out of Townsville and are all deployed to Timor. I also indicate that the 1st Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment is standing by in Townsville to take over from 2nd Battalion when the rotation occurs as expected in February. I have seen all the preparations and the enormous effort that the ADF has put in in Townsville Thuringowa to move such a large contingent through Darwin to Timor, and I am aware of the cost of those preparations.I also speak with the knowledge gained from having been to Timor Sunday week ago. I was very privileged to go to Timor with the Prime Minister, the Chief of the Defence Force and the Secretary to the Department of Defence to see first hand Australia's operations in East Timor and to tell the troops first hand how proud we are of what they have been able to do, how professionally they have operated and how they deserve the ongoing view that they are the best land troops in the world today. I was able to meet again with Major General Cosgrove at INTERFET headquarters and talk to many of the commanders who were there to give our party a briefing. I also was able to see the hospital services that were set up. Those hospital services were provided by troops from Holsworthy, in the electorate of the member for Hughes, Mrs Vale. Tremendous work is being done there, with complete intensive care hospital facilities on the ground in Dili. There is an enormous cost in setting up, maintaining and operating those particular facilities. We should not overlook the transport squadrons that are there, and the airfield defence squadrons and the combat support units from the RAAF. After all, the blue uniforms of the RAAF are just as important in support of this operation as are the khaki of the Army and the white of the Navy.I then was able to go Maliana, where the 2nd Battalion has a contingent, to meet Brigadier Mark Evans, the Commander of 3rd Brigade, who normally is based in Townsville, and to see 3 CER and their road construction operations, and so on. A big camp with a lot of infrastructure is set up there in quite a remote location about five kilometres from the West Timor border. That was a very big operation, a very costly operation. From there I went to Batugade—in the western regions, about three kilometres from the border, where that unfortunate skirmish happened with the Indonesians—to again see members of the 2nd Battalion who are operating that particular post.The government has been most proactive. I pay tribute to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, the Hon. Bruce Scott, for his determination to look after our troops in Timor. I refer particularly to the special allowances that the government made available for people serving in that area—I know that the troops welcomed those—and the free mail service that has been provided and which is paid for by the Defence Force. This bill before the parliament, the Appropriation (East Timor) Bill 1999-2000 , addresses the cost of those sorts of things. There is no doubt that those things are most appreciated by the troops serving in East Timor today.The Commonwealth government is taking a more philosophical policy line. The government needs to take steps to ensure that the critical role that Australia is playing in East Timor can be sustained for as long as necessary. The government has accepted from the United Nations the onus of responsibility for leading the international community in peace enforcement in East Timor, and we have a responsibility to make sure that the costs are met from the budget without the budget going into deficit. It is very important indeed that the budget be kept in surplus—most honourable members will know the benefits of that—and that we send a strong message to financial markets that the government is determined to stay in surplus and not borrow a single penny. We made an initial commitment of, as I remember, about 2,500 troops as part of INTERFET, but in due course that climbed to a little over 4,700. That will, with the orderly change to UN control in phase 3, drop back to about 1,500, but the cost is still there. I inform the House that I listened to the PM when he made the point early in the piece—0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—He made it very well.HK6Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAY—He did, Parliamentary Secretary. This is a point that seems have been missed by many. He said:While the Defence Force must be equipped to defend Australia from direct attack, it must also be able to respond to other more likely contingencies. In other words, the Australian community must face the need for a significant increase in defence commitment in the years ahead.That is a very important statement—we have to `face the need for a significant increase in Defence commitment in the years ahead'. This is something that I have been saying in the last several years. I think this is the strongest and most positive signal we have heard for many years from the Prime Minister in relation to Defence Force funding. It underlines that the coalition government understands the needs of the ADF; but, more than that, that it is willing to directly support the needs of the ADF.I am under no illusion whatsoever as to the extent of the commitment Australia has made to INTERFET—and I do not believe any honourable member here is—in terms of personnel and equipment as well as of the significant financial commitment that that has entailed. It has been a very large financial commitment but one that we as a government and as a nation have been prepared to accept and meet.As a strong and consistent advocate for the need for increased defence spending, I certainly warmly welcomed the Prime Minister's comments as a positive sign for the future of the Australian Defence Force. Australia's leading involvement in the East Timor peacekeeping force has strengthened the resources of the Australian Defence Force further and has put more pressure on the resources of the Defence Force than at any time since our involvement in the Vietnam war. Australia has set itself up over many years as a significant player in South-East Asian affairs, projecting itself as a source of economic and political stability in our region. And so we should: we have proven that we can `talk the talk', so to speak—but the unfolding situation in East Timor has made it imperative that we ensure that Australia has the ability to back those words up in action and `walk the walk' as well.The opposition has been very quick to attack and lecture the government over defence in relation to our involvement in East Timor. But, of course, the opposition has been very quick to try to forget its record on defence in office. I have made this point on several occasions as well. Unfortunately, under the opposition, despite a major 1987 white paper advocating real growth, defence expenditure in Australia has fallen steadily over the last 10 or 15 years. It is a matter of public record—and the parliamentary secretary will know this—that it has fallen from about 2.7 per cent of GDP to about 1.9 per cent today. For too long, governments in Australia considered defence only in terms of the here and now—instead of dealing with defence as it should be dealt with, in terms of long-term goals.While I am pleased that today's government took the tough decision in 1996—and it was a tough decision—to quarantine defence from budget cuts, I recognised and I have said publicly on a number of occasions that efficiency savings can only go so far towards repairing the many years of past neglect that the ADF had suffered.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—At the hands of the Labor Party.HK6Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAY—Yes; at their hands, Mr Parliamentary Secretary. The government today is in a very difficult position in relation to defence. Not only have we committed ourselves to what could be a long-term involvement in East Timor but financially we are still coming to terms with the mistakes made by the previous government. Mr Deputy Speaker, I would refer you to projects such as JORN—the over-the-horizon radar—the Collins class submarine and the fixing up of the Kanimbla and the Manoora that is currently under way. The amount of money that each of these mistakes has been costing taxpayers is money that could otherwise have been spent supporting the INTERFET operation in East Timor. But the government is determined to fix up all these problems and then move on, because it is vital that we have a strong and viable defence force. Members of the Defence Force itself understand the government's resolve in making sure that this occurs.I was very encouraged not long ago when it looked as though for the first time in many decades political parties in Australia were coming together in total support of increased funding for the ADF. This is the kind of cooperative and nonpartisan approach Australia needs to take today in relation to defence, to address not only our immediate short-term challenges but also our long-term needs. As encouraged as I was to hear the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Democrats moving towards conciliation and genuine bipartisan cooperation in relation to defence spending, all parties need to accept the fact that none of us has a monopoly over knowing what is best for defence.I hope that this is a starting point and that this parliament gives serious and urgent consideration to the recommendations of the 1998 joint parliamentary report, Funding Australia's defence, and moves towards increasing defence spending in Australia by between perhaps 1.5 per cent and 2.5 per cent per year over the next five years. I do hope that is possible. Another of the report's major findings was that the parliament must be prepared now for the large additional defence expenditure that we will face in about the year 2010, when we will have to manage the block obsolescence that will naturally occur in major defence items and equipment. We need to take steps now to ensure in the five-, 10- or 20-year time horizon that the Australian Defence Force does have the necessary resources to be able to face the types of challenges we face today in East Timor.While our Defence Force personnel will manage, and manage very well, in the current INTERFET deployment, the crisis in East Timor has stretched Australia's defence resources. The bill before the parliament addresses that, and I certainly strongly support the government's bill. I welcome the government's resolve to keep the budget in surplus. I think we all understand that. Through this process, we will be able to manage the challenge and ensure that the Australian Defence Force can sustain its deployment in East Timor as part of the multinational force.I will finish with the comment that I believe that the people of Townsville and Thuringowa—again, Australia's largest ADF base—strongly support the government in this particular view: we need to resource the Australian Defence Force appropriately. I certainly bring that message to the parliament today on behalf of the people of Townsville and Thuringowa. We strongly support the particular bill before the parliament.12:52:0013058Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—I would initially like to thank all honourable members who have participated in this debate—the honourable members for Melbourne, Blair, Cunningham, Wentworth, Franklin, Cowan, Calare, Mitchell and Herbert. I would also like to express to the House my appreciation of the bipartisanship that has been shown in relation to this essential bill which underpins a very important decision, a very important commitment made by this nation to the people of East Timor. Thus I commend to the House the Appropriation (East Timor) Bill 1999-2000 .This bill makes provision for special appropriations to the Department of Defence and the Australian Agency for International Development, AusAID, concerning Australia's involvement in the East Timor region. The honourable member for Melbourne, who is at the table, led the debate for the opposition and confirmed at the outset that the Labor Party supports Australia's commitment to East Timor, and I place on record that we appreciate the opposition's support. He then deviated somewhat, as did a number of other honourable members, from the strict provisions of the bill and sought to criticise the government's budgetary approach and our financial responsibility.It would be remiss of me if I did not place on record that the government has sound economic policies. Since we were elected to government in 1996, we have displayed responsible economic management, and this is the reason the budget is in surplus today. The government has delivered on the most fundamental reforms seen in decades.7K6ENTSCHMr Entsch—Hear, hear!0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—The parliamentary secretary at the table is right, because it is recognised not only by the parliamentary secretary but by the entire Australian community that this is a government which inherited a $10.3 billion budget deficit. We did not create the problem but we accepted the responsibility to fix it. It ought to be appreciated that the projected budget surplus in the year 2000-2001 is $4.4 billion in accrual terms. This is not a budget of disarray, it is a healthy economic position for the finances of this country.With respect to the levy for East Timor, the government is not using this as a revenue raising tool for the sake of it, we are using it to pay for an extraordinary item of expense that we could not reasonably have predicted at the time of the budget. The honourable member for Melbourne also referred to the Vertigan report and he claimed that it has identified a number of problems in relation to the federal budget process. He claims, wrongly, that we cannot trust the budget process as it exists at the moment. Again, the honourable member for Melbourne is entirely incorrect. This year's budget has been a tremendous achievement and for the first time the Commonwealth has identified the full costs—in an open and transparent way—of delivering services and programs to the Australian community.The 1999-2000 accrual federal budget, according to the Vertigan report, will contribute to whole of government decision making, to agency management and to the understanding of government activities by stakeholders. The report went on to say that the successful presentation of the 1999-2000 budget under the new framework was a very considerable achievement. So, far from criticising what we have achieved, the report recognises our success and states that our achievement will position Australia at the forefront of public sector budget and financial management internationally.There are of course important lessons to be learned from the first accrual budget, and the government is committed to improving the budget process. The honourable member for Cunningham talked at some length. He spoke more generally in relation to defence matters rather than specifically concerning the subject covered by this bill. He raised the question as to where the Defence Reform Program savings have gone and suggested that those savings have not gone to East Timor. I indicate to the House that, in anticipation of the East Timor deployment, the government directed that 1 Brigade in Darwin be raised to 28 days notice to move.Defence self-funded this additional cost of about $260 million by using some of the savings that have been made under the reform program. Other reform program savings have been directed at maintaining the ADF at 50,000 personnel which includes about 7,000 additional personnel in the combat force, additional new equipment and additional funding for the maintenance of current equipment. All reform program savings have been allocated and are not available to meet East Timor deployment or force expansion costs.The honourable member for Cunningham also raised the question of whether the defence budget is contributing to East Timor costs. The fact of the matter is that the defence budget is contributing to East Timor costs. For the current deployment, for example, it is covering salary costs, not the deployment allowance, and a range of operating costs such as the Royal Australian Air Force and the Royal Australian Navy transport support. Funding in the bill before the chamber is for net additional costs after the defence budget has accommodated and absorbed costs to the greatest possible extent.Mr Deputy Speaker, being a perceptive person you would appreciate that it is important to remember that the normal defence budget does not cover the costs of sustained operations. Successive governments have provided additional funding on an as required basis—for example, during the Gulf War, Bougainville, Rwanda and so on. This is a practice that has been followed by governments of both political complexions. The honourable member for Cunningham sought to draw our attention to a claim that some personnel in Timor are complaining that they are not receiving the required equipment such as combat armour. It has been a very safe operation so far. We are very proud of our men and women in East Timor. The Australian Defence Force was required to deploy at very short notice and every effort was made to ensure that our personnel were properly equipped. Funds sought in this bill will cover any additional equipment requirements.The honourable member for Wentworth suggested that East Timor will be a client state of Australia or will be dependent on this nation. The government has made it clear on a number of occasions that the task of rebuilding or building an independent East Timor is one for the international community as a whole and not just for Australia. Our nation is proud to play a part but other countries will also need to share the burden. Also, as the damage to East Timor is repaired, with international assistance the East Timorese people themselves will have a major responsibility to develop their own economy in a sustainable way, including through establishing good political and commercial relationships with near neighbours, especially the Republic of Indonesia.The honourable member for Wentworth also referred to the importance of assistance to Indonesia and other neighbouring countries, including East Timor, in dealing with the spread of HIV-AIDS. While this is not the subject matter of this bill, I want to make the record clear that our nation is already supporting, through the aid program, a major program of HIV-AIDS prevention and care in Indonesia. Longer term assistance to East Timor will also pay attention to basic health needs, particularly health education, to prevent the spread of disease.Mr Deputy Speaker Quick, you referred to veterans. The Howard government is very proud to say that we respect the role played by our veterans and we are very proud of our record in this area. The honourable member for Mitchell paid tribute to our defence men and women in East Timor—a very appropriate sentiment.The honourable member for Calare referred to possible delays in getting aid workers on the ground in East Timor and also the need for assistance with forensic expertise. Australian assistance with transport and logistics was instrumental in getting international humanitarian assistance to East Timor as soon as the security situation permitted. The UN Transitional Administration is currently looking at its requirements for specific technical assistance, including on forensic matters, and the government has indicated that it will respond positively.The honourable member for Calare also referred to public calls for cuts in aid and international support for Indonesia in response to events in East Timor. The government has made it absolutely clear that we have no intention of cutting development aid to Indonesia. As the honourable member indicated, cuts in aid would primarily hurt poor Indonesians. A very key objective of aid to Indonesia is to improve the system of governance and to support economic and social reform programs. It simply is not in Australia's national interest, in seeing a secure regional environment, to cut assistance to Indonesia.The honourable member for Herbert is a very keen advocate for the defence forces and an outstanding representative for North Queensland, as is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, the member for Leichhardt, who is at the table. The member for Herbert spoke of his visit to East Timor and of the important role of the armed forces and our deployment in East Timor.The bill before the chamber provides immediate access to needed supplementary funding for these agencies, the Department of Defence and the Australian Agency for International Development, and will allow them to operate financially uninhibited in fulfilling the government's commitment to the East Timor region and the East Timorese people. The appropriations in the East Timor bill total $920 million for the 1999-2000 year only. An amount of $860 million is provided for the Department of Defence for the deployment and peace enforcement in East Timor, new investments that may be needed to augment the capability of the forces in East Timor, and an increase in overall Australian Defence Force numbers so that the deployment can be sustained and acceptable levels of overall readiness maintained. An amount of $60 million is provided for AusAID to fund Australia's contribution to the humanitarian and reconstruction needs of East Timor and to support the establishment and operations of the United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor.The Howard government is particularly proud that we as a nation have responded to the needs of the people of East Timor. We are very impressed and proud, as indeed are all members of this House and all Australians, at the very fine way in which Australian service men and women are conducting themselves in the operation in East Timor. The Appropriation (East Timor) Bill 1999-2000 will support that very important action by Australia overseas, and I commend the bill to the chamber.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.13061Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr Slipper) read a third time.Bills13061r94213061Debate resumed from 24 November, on motion by Mr Truss:That the bill be now read a second time.13:06:0013061O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNORWU5CorioALP00—The opposition does not oppose the legislation before the House. This legislation amends the Farm Household Support Act 1992 to remove the deadline of 1 December 1999 for the receipt of applications for restart re-establishment grants under the Farm Family Restart Scheme. The deadline for applications by farmers for support in the form of restart re-establishment grants under the Farm Family Restart Scheme will now be extended to 30 June 2000. The Farm Household Support Amendment Bill 1999 provides that, in future, deadlines will be set by means of an instrument under section 52A of the act. This was the position under Labor's original 1992 legislation until it was amended by the current government in 1997 as part of its Agriculture—Advancing Australia package.The Farm Family Restart Scheme is part of a framework of measures in place at the Commonwealth level to provide some degree of income support and security to farm families on low incomes. This scheme is administered by Cenrelink on behalf of the Depart ment of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and provides farmers with access to limited levels of income support, access to financial counselling and re-establishment grants for those low income farmers who are unable to access commercial finance in the financial marketplace.The process of structural adjustment is a continuous one in agriculture. It has been particularly so over the past three decades. While the number of farmers has declined substantially, on farm productivity has increased dramatically. The skills of farmers have improved. Access to and the use of new technologies has accelerated at a breathtaking pace in many sectors of agriculture, as it has in various areas of the Australian economy. Alongside these developments, farmers have had to contend with significant fluctuations in commodity prices and in their incomes. They have also had to contend with the vagaries of climate change and the decline of the rural communities in which they live. Many farmers have found themselves without the capacity to expand their farm enterprises, in the sense of acquiring more land, or financially being in a position to adopt the new technologies that they need to keep producing in a very competitive environment. Many, at points in their personal career cycles, have decided to leave agriculture altogether.The restart re-establishment grants of up to $45,000 are paid to very low income farmers who make the decision to exit the agricultural sector. The grants are payable on the sale of the farm, which must be done within 12 months of the deadline which is outlined in the bill. Any restart income support under the Farm Family Restart Scheme that a farmer receives is deducted from that $45,000 exit payment. Farmers can also access professional financial counselling advice on the future viability of their farms and also on their future employment options should they decide to leave agriculture. This is a very important Commonwealth scheme that gives farmers some breathing space, when they come under financial stress, to consider their options as far as continuing to produce in agriculture or leaving the sector altogether. It means that they do not have to make a hurried decision as to selling their farm and possibly doing that in depressed markets, lowering their financial returns in the long term.The facts of the matter are that the government has not had the take-up it anticipated of the restart re-establishment grants. The information that has been provided to us indicates that only 240 re-establishment grants have been paid since December 1997. The minister at the time—I think it was Minister Anderson—was quite excited about the provisions of this scheme and talked them up among farmers. He talked up the extent to which the government was providing for the welfare needs of farmers in financial stress—if I may use that term. The simple fact of the matter is that the regime in place is not accessible to many farmers. That is probably the reason, although it is not stated by the government anywhere in the published material that there has been a low take-up of this aspect of the Farm Family Restart Scheme, that the government wishes to extend the access of farmers to this provision. We on this side will not be opposing the actions taken by the government because, as I explained, the ability of the minister to set a deadline on this scheme through an instrument of the parliament resided with the original legislation that Labor introduced and which was subsequently amended by the coalition when it made some initiatives under the Farm Household Support Act 1992.We are also critical of the government's review process of this scheme. Back in 1998, the government indicated its intention to conduct a review of the Farm Family Restart Scheme. We understand that, one year on, the government has appointed a consultant to conduct that review. That is not good enough. If the government gives a commitment in 1998 to review a particular scheme it should move quickly to do that and then, in the wake of that review, make the sort of amendments that it proposes in this piece of legislation. That brings me to another point because, in our view, the government has merely restated the rationale for the scheme—not the rationale for the extension that is proposed in this legislation. The government has said:Extending the FFRS re-establishment grants will assist farmers in severe financial difficulties to assess their future in agriculture and, if necessary, leave the industry with dignity.We know that that was a part of the original intention of this scheme. That is not a rationale for the extension that is being provided for in this legislation. We do not oppose that extension, but we call on the government to be really honest and up-front as to the reasons why it is making this extension to the application times that farmers can access the particular provisions of the Farm Family Restart Scheme and the restart re-establishment grants provided under that scheme. The rationale the government is providing in this bill is, in a technical sense, not substantial. However, we acknowledge that there are farmers out there who are on low incomes and in particular financial difficulty who will need to access this scheme and the provisions of this scheme over the next seven months. So we will not be opposing the legislation before the House at this point in time.13:16:0013062St Clair, Stuart, MPMr St CLAIR84BNew EnglandNP10—I certainly welcome the contribution made by the member for Corio and in particular the opposition support for the Farm Household Support Amendment Bill 1999 . We all know that it is very difficult out there at the moment and any help that can be given is certainly needed. It gives me great pleasure to also rise to support the bill. It will help farmers not only in my electorate of New England but all over rural, regional and remote Australia with the changes that are taking place within agriculture alluded to by the member for Corio during his talk and the difficulty some people face when coping with change within the agricultural scene. The bill before the House will extend the deadline for applications for re-establishment grants under the Farm Family Restart Scheme to 30 June 2000. The original deadline for applications was 30 November this year, which has since passed. The government has decided to extend the deadline for applications so that the scheme can be reviewed. The new deadline will be 30 June 2000, which will be set in a legislative instrument under the main act.The bill will amend the legislation to apply the changes retrospectively to 1 December 1999, to ensure a seamless coverage. The Farm Family Restart Scheme was introduced in December 1997 as part of the Agriculture—Advancing Australia—the AAA—initiative of this government which has certainly been very well received. According to the latest information that I have, 283 farmers to the end of October have benefited from the re-establishment grants since the grants became available in December 1997. That is quite a considerable number. Another 1,000 farmers have used the income support payments available through the program to assist them during some very difficult periods.The Farm Family Restart Scheme is the government's key program for delivering improved—I do not like to use the words `welfare support'—financial support to the farm sector as well as providing advice and assistance to farmers in severe financial difficulties. We all know of the work that our rural counsellors are doing in all of our electorates throughout Australia and we commend them for it. It is important that farmers who take the difficult decision to leave agriculture do so with dignity and before their assets are severely depleted. The member for Parkes and I have spoken regularly about this matter because we have seen it so often in our electorates. We need to give people dignity when they make these big decisions. They are momentous in some cases. Some of the families have been on those particular properties and carrying on those businesses for some generations. They need to have that dignity before they end up in real strife and with their assets being severely depleted.The original deadline of 30 November 1999 for re-establishment applications was set to encourage farmers to take early action about their future rather than to allow their circumstances to deteriorate. It sometimes takes longer for some to come to grips with that. The scheme will shortly be subject to review so that its effectiveness can be assessed, as the member for Corio mentioned. This seven-month extension of the re-establishment grant component will ensure that support continues to be available in the interim. It is most important, as we all know, to continue that support through that period.The Farm Family Restart Scheme is available to low income farm families who cannot borrow further against their assets and wish to consider their future in the farm sector. We see how important that is when we look at the price and the value of land and of farms. In my part of the country, for example, 10 or 12 years ago, in about 1988, you might have seen land in the very prime fine wool growing areas selling up to $1,000 or $1,500 an acre. At Ben Lomond, in some cases it was $2,000 an acre. The size of farm you could make a living from reduced from a norm of about 1,200 acres to 600 acres. Now, because of produce prices and the returns that people receive, the values of those properties are substantially less than that, down to $500 an acre. So, when people are looking at borrowing against assets such as land, it is important to realise that their asset is worth far less now than it was in the past. Their ability to borrow funds against that asset has been substantially diminished.Assistance through the Farm Family Restart Scheme is flexible and can be tailored to meet the needs of each of the farm families. The proposed extension to the Farm Family Restart Scheme re-establishment grants will facilitate the exit from farming of those farmers in severe financial difficulty and without prospects of a financially sound future in agriculture. A lot of people and a lot of farmers in my region are sitting down looking at the future. They are planning their future and assessing how they fit into the whole scheme of agriculture as it has changed. The re-establishment grant element of the Farm Family Restart Scheme was introduced with the intention that it would provide an incentive for farmers who wished to consider their future in agriculture to act as promptly as they can.The government is keen to ensure that its assistance programs are meeting the needs of farm families. The Farm Family Restart Scheme will be subject to review so that, as we heard, its effectiveness can be assessed. Although it will take some time to appoint a consultant to review the scheme and to carry out the review, it is critical that we have a review and ensure that the program is working exceptionally well. This seven-month extension will ensure that support continues to be available in the interim.In recent months it has become increasingly clear that significant adjustment pressures are continuing in some industries and some regions around Australia. It is therefore desirable to provide continuing support for farmers in financial difficulties. The cost of extending the deadline for applications is estimated at $5.1 million. The re-establishment grant is worth up to $45,000 to farmers who decide to sell their farm and leave agriculture and can do so within 12 months of applying for support. Farmers are able to hold assets of up to $90,000 and still receive the maximum grant. The grants provide farmers with the resources to build a new life off the farm. Farmers can use the grant towards establishing a new type of business, a new direction and a new future, and assessing training for a new career or in fact to retire.Under the Farm Family Restart Scheme, the Commonwealth provides up to $3,000 for farmers to obtain professional advice on their business. As we enter the new century, people who are going into business need to be professional about their business and need to make sure that they have the best possible professional advice and counselling on their businesses so that they can make a great success of them. If the decision to leave the farm is made—and, as I mentioned earlier, what a monumental decision that is for a lot of people—this support can also cover advice on the options for off-farm employment. It is always a difficult decision to leave the land. Professional advice helps farmers identify the best course for them and their families. Farmers who have received the income support payments are able to apply for the re-establishment grant before their 12-month period expires. It is important that people know that they are able to apply for the re-establishment grant before their 12-month period expires.Change is important for the success of industry in Australia. I have no doubt in my mind about that. But it is not so easy for some to adjust to the change. We are producing far more with far fewer people and that imposes increasing pressures on the agricultural sector. I believe that this bill helps farmers with the change in the agricultural industry. I commend the bill.13:25:0013064Lawler, Tony, MPMr LAWLER834ParkesNP10—The Farm Family Restart Scheme was established under the government's Agriculture—Advancing Australia package in 1997. This exit grant is provided as an incentive for those who are wishing to leave agriculture and to help them to do so as quickly as possible before their assets are severely depleted. The shadow minister for this portfolio made a comment about it being a reintroduction of a Labor program. In 1992, Labor introduced the Farm Household Support Bill. That bill was also meant to assist farmers who needed help to meet their daily living expenses, but this support was offered as a loan for up to two years and, unless the farmer sold out in the first nine months, the loan would have to be paid out in full. I see this program as a superior one to the one that was previously on offer.The Farm Family Restart Scheme is the government's key program for delivering improved—as the member for New England says, he does not like to use the term and neither do I—welfare support to the farm sector. It is available to low income farm families who cannot borrow further against their assets and who need to consider their future in the farm sector and perhaps take a new direction. It provides income support for up to one year and also provides professional advice in a wide range of areas to suit individual needs—financial, legal or career advice. The re-establishment grant of up to $45,000 is also available to those farmers who take the decision to immediately leave agriculture. The re-establishment grant component of the Farm Family Restart Scheme was due to close on 30 November, but the intent of this Farm Household Support Amendment Bill 1999 is to extend the current deadline by seven months, to 30 June.Over 2,900 farm families have received income support under the Farm Family Restart Scheme since it commenced in 1997 and over 240 re-establishment grants have been paid. The proposed extension of the Farm Family Restart Scheme re-establishment grants will facilitate the exit from farming of those farmers in severe financial difficulties and without prospects of a financially sound future in agriculture. In my electorate in the west of New South Wales, many have been struggling for some time due to commodity prices and prolonged drought—some, admittedly, due to poor management, although most of those are long gone. But we still have people remaining who perhaps should not have remained because their equity is decreasing by the month. They are the people who need professional advice on taking their best options.The West 2000 program has looked at the importance of maintaining the social fabric of our communities. They recognise the need for continuing restructure assistance, perhaps for a further three years. It does not matter where we go in western New South Wales—from Forbes to Parkes, Trundle, Tullamore, Cobar, Brewarrina, Wilcannia, Tibooburra, Ivanhoe or Broken Hill—the further west we go the less viable are the farmers we see. In recent months, it has because increasingly clear that significant adjustment pressures are continuing in some industries and regions. These pressures have been highlighted by, for example, the report of the wool industry Future Directions Taskforce headed by Ian McLachlan.Following this report, I believe it is desirable to provide continuing support for farmers in financial difficulties. The re-establishment element of the Farm Family Restart Scheme was introduced with the intention that it would provide an incentive for those farmers who wished to consider their future in agriculture and to act promptly. But while there has been a steady demand for re-establishment grants since 1997, as we have mentioned, there have not been that many taken up, and there are some reasons for that. The government is keen to ensure that its assistance programs are meeting the needs of farm families, and the program will be subject to a review so that its effectiveness can be assessed. This seven-month extension will ensure that support continues to be available while it is being assessed. At the moment, the re-establishment grant of $45,000 is available to farmers who decide to sell their farm and who can do so within 12 months of applying for support. Farmers are able to hold assets of up to $90,000 and still receive the maximum grant. The grant provides farmers with the resources to build a new life off the farm and allows them to put that grant towards establishing new businesses, training themselves, providing a new career for themselves or retiring. But, as we have mentioned, many farmers face difficult decisions about their futures. The $3,000 that is available to farmers to obtain the professional advice on their farm business is a great service. Many of these people have not in their working lives had the need or the opportunity to thoroughly analyse their businesses and their own futures. So I would certainly support an effort to extend, and maybe improve, this scheme. I give my thanks to Cathy Sim, from the Macquarie Rural Advisory Service, for her advice in preparing some of these thoughts. One of the main difficulties being experienced at the moment with the re-establishment grants is one that I hope will be addressed as consideration is given to what will happen with the scheme in the next six or seven months. Let us look at three different cases, three different groups of farmers. Farmers who initially claimed income support as a very temporary measure often believed that they had long-term viability. These farmers may have been operating with banker support, encouraging them to think that they had long-term viability, but they now realise that perhaps they should exit farming. This change of mind has been driven by factors such as continued depressed commodity prices and natural disasters, and even OJD. However, their income support may have ceased, say, in December 1998, requiring them to have the property sold by December 1999 if they wanted to be eligible for the re-establishment grant. In some cases, these farmers cannot make the deadline. Consider also the farmers who have decided to exit agriculture and immediately apply for a re-establishment grant, perhaps in conjunction with the income subsidy. These farmers appear to be in the group that was envisaged by the scheme's designers. However, examples do exist of farmers who are unable to sell their properties within the 12-month time frame required; unfortunately, there are a lot of farms on the market and, often, few buyers present. Consider the third case, where farmers have given voluntary possession to the bank. Some farmers have given the bank uncontested vacant possession, leaving the bank in control of the sale. This would appear to be ideal to create conditions which would help with a quick sale. But, again, there are cases where even the bank has been unable to sell a property within the 12-month time frame. This emphasises the fact that it is the poor property market that is the main cause of delayed sales, not the reluctance of farmers. However, even these farmers are made ineligible if the bank does not get the property sold within the 12-month time frame.In all of these cases there is a further concern that Centrelink defines a sale as the settlement date rather than the exchange of contract. In effect, this means that farmers often have approximately only 10 months rather than 12 to find a buyer, further exacerbating the problems experienced with the time frame. The Farm Family Restart Scheme was designed to encourage unviable farmers to exit agriculture. I believe this 12-month time frame is unnecessarily restrictive, making it less likely that the aim of the scheme will be achieved. I would suggest extending the time frame for the sale or giving vacant possession to the bank for two years. In the event that the bank valuation shows nil farmer equity in the land, immediate payment of the grant should still be made. Where the bank valuation shows that some farmer equity in the land still exists, eligibility for the re-establishment grant should be verified at the time of vacant possession and payment made on settlement. The continuing adjustment pressures on agriculture mean that there is a real need for the scheme to continue. There has been no improvement in commodity prices, particular ly for wheat and wool, since the scheme's introduction in 1997. I believe that dryland agriculture will remain depressed beyond the scheme's anticipated closure in 2000 and would certainly recommend that the scheme be revisited with, perhaps, some refinement required. The Agriculture—Advancing Australia package envisaged a three-year period of structural reform for agriculture but, again, this has been shown to be too short. World trade and climatic pressures have continued, making increasing numbers of farmers unviable. There is a clear need for this scheme to be extended for another period, and I would suggest three years.13:35:0013066Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—I will keep my comments fairly brief, not having had a great deal of time to prepare a detailed comment. The Farm Family Restart Scheme was announced in September 1997 as part of the government's Agriculture—Advancing Australia package, the AAA package. Other components to the package were the Rural Communities Program; the retiring farmer assistance program, which attempted to improve access to the age pension for supposedly asset-rich farmers of retirement age; the Farm Business Improvement Program; the Farm Management Deposit Scheme; the farm household support scheme debt write-off; the climate related research and development program; extension of drought relief payments, and the recovery period therefore; and the Rural Adjustment Scheme. In total, the government budgeted to spend $517.7 million on these programs, with the $120.4 million allocated for the Farm Family Restart Scheme representing more than one-fifth of the total funds available.When announced, this program was described as the government's key to delivering improved welfare support for the farm sector as well as providing adjustment assistance to farmers who wanted to leave the land. I gave my strong support for this aspect of the bill as I was well aware of the difficulties faced by many farmers in my electorate. As the previous speaker, the member for Parkes, indicated, this is increasingly so the further west you go into the more marginal country areas. Those farmers were finding that, for a range of reasons, with drought—and, in my neck of the woods, OJD—stock price problems, loan problems, commodity price problems related to world trade difficulties and so on, their formerly prosperous farming enterprises were becoming marginal at best.I did, however, strongly urge the government at the time to alter another aspect of the package, the Retirement Assistance for Farmers Scheme. I argued that the asset threshold to access that scheme should have been $800,000, not $500,000 as was legislated. From memory, the National Farmers Federation was suggesting a similar amount. I will suggest in a moment how the government could extend that scheme using the savings that appear to be available through the low take-up for the restart scheme. The proposed bill aims to extend for seven months, to 30 June 2000, the current deadline for farmers to access the scheme. This can be done, I expect, largely because of the incredibly low take-up rate for the scheme.From what I can see, these are the questions the government needs to ask itself about the program which was costed at $120 million. Why is it that, according to the annual report of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, there is such a low demand for the program? According to that report, at 30 June this year the Farm Family Restart scheme had provided income support to 1,208 farm families and during 1998-99 only 172 farmers leaving agriculture were paid re-establishment grants. According to the report, the actual outlays on the program for the 1997-98 and 1998-99 financial years were as follows: for the re-establishing counselling and program delivery, $20 million; and for the income support component, $23 million. That is just over one-third of the $120 million originally budgeted for.I do not know what the 1999-2000 figure might be, but I think we can assume that it will not be much more than $30 million, which will still leave some $50 million in the kitty, so to speak. I want to know why this well-intentioned program had such a low take-up rate. Forgive me if I am unaware of these issues being raised by another party, but I have not heard the coalition or the national or state farmers association raise this question. I would be interested in their response. I suspect it has much to do with the onerous criteria for accessing the scheme.On this point of access criteria, it is worth making some comments on applying those to the other main aspect of the package, the Retirement Assistance for Farmers Scheme. Under that process, the social security gifting provisions were eased to allow asset rich but income poor farmers to access an adequate welfare safety net. Those criteria were that the net assets of the farming enterprise be under $500,000, that the enterprise have not delivered more than the pension income cut-off for a period and that the transfer to be to someone who has been actively involved in a farming venture for three years.This scheme has also been plagued by problems, due largely to the access criteria. I want to read portions of a letter from a constituent sent to the Prime Minister, a copy of which was sent to me, to demonstrate a couple of fundamental problems. The letter states:My wife and I are both in our seventies and We've spent all our lives on the land. In 1971, after the death of my father, the land was willed to the three sons. As one of my brothers could not face the payment of the huge probate incurred by this inheritance we had to buy out his share of the farm to keep it in the family. To do this, because I was executor of my father's will, we had to form Wren's Nest Pastoral Company.The Wren's Nest Pastoral Company is now worth around one million dollars. However, due to high interest rates under the Labor government, continual drought, high wool taxes and the death of the Reserve Price Scheme, the fact that we had to shoot three thousand good sheep and suffer nine years of low wool prices, plus stock losses of up to ten per cent from Ovine Johne's Disease, we now have such a huge debt that our real assets stand at less than five hundred thousand dollars. This makes us eligible for the pension. Unfortunately, the Department of Family and Community Services has an unyielding policy that will not allow us to get the pension unless the land is transferred twice:—he is referring to Centrelink—firstly from the Wren's Nest Pastoral Company to my wife and I, and then to our sons. The Department's proviso that the transfer has to be done twice. instead of straight from the company to our sons (which would be quite legal) would mean that under State law we would be required to pay Stamp Duty on the full value of the company which will give us Stamp Duty of approximately forty thousand dollars. . . . When you consider the boys have actually put money into the company and invested plenty of labour and worry into the place to keep it going you could say that we would be paying Stamp Duty on what is partially already their own asset. Just how unfair is this?I understand the department has been reviewing the retirement scheme for almost a year now, looking at ways to iron out any anomalies. The issue of the double transfer outlined in this letter from Mr Allan Hoolihan to the PM is one I suggest the government should urgently deal with.This, I believe, is how they could do it. They could use the $50 million left over from the Farm Family Restart Scheme to fund extending the retirement scheme to farms with a net value of $800,000 and owned by a family business. It is simply ridiculous to require families to pay stamp duties on the transfer from their business to themselves simply so they can then access the pension. I hope, when summing up, the minister can address the concerns I have briefly raised.Mr Hoolihan mentioned the impact of OJD on his property and his livelihood. I must say that, having looked at this very closely over the last four years and had numerous constituents come to me who have been caught in the sticky web of this OJD disaster, as far as they are individually concerned, I cannot really understand how there cannot be sympathetic consideration of exceptional circumstance or some similar program for these families. There are people who have put generations of effort into developing studs who still have fine animals, but because they have one or two suspect animals it is enough for them to achieve a status that precludes them from the wider market for their product. I am talking about fine marino stock.I have one family still maintaining the process—playing the game, if you like—in the hope that miraculously someone will call off this discriminatory process where they have been labelled a leper, along with numerous other property owners throughout the Central Tablelands, while others are avoiding their responsibilities. I guess, quite under standably, they do not want to raise the prospect of their being included in this sticky web. So they continue to trade, quite probably with infected stock, while others who have gone through the testing process have been caught up in the web, and there seems to be no light at the end of the tunnel.A couple of weeks ago, I had a very sad experience of going to one of these former stud properties where the people thought they might buy another property at Canowindra and shift the embryos to stock on that property, only to find the neighbouring property achieved suspect status, and their whole process again was thwarted. It has cost an enormous amount of money and pain, to the point where this relatively young man has suffered major health problems. They see no way out of this maze and he continues to carry on this process with these beautiful animals worth $5,000 and $6,000 which he cannot sell on the open market. The best he can get for them is mutton prices at the saleyards.There are some anomalies in that process, which I wrote to the state minister about. Having observed the sale of suspect stock in their confined categories at the Bathurst sale yards, I was intrigued as to the forward checking of where this stock is going. It seems to me that there is only a question asked, `Where are these suspect stock going?' and someone says, `They are going to slaughter at Forbes abattoir,' and that is written on the clipboard and that is as far as it goes. They do not have the resources to check whether or not that stock eventually gets to Forbes abattoir or whether in fact it goes via a couple of paddocks in the area and is reintroduced to another saleyard somewhere as clean stock. That is how many holes there are in the OJD net, and it is quite unfair and discriminatory that we have producers out there who are being treated as suffering from some sort of disease as others in the industry continue to trade.I think that the faecal test, which has been recommended nationally for accreditation to speed up the testing of properties, should be introduced as a universal test right throughout at least the eastern portion and probably the whole of the Australian sheep flock. The rule should be: if one in, all in. We should treat OJD as we did brucellosis and insist on obligatory testing, and fund it properly; otherwise, we are just going to perpetrate an injustice that is out there in our sheep industry and it will inevitably creep into the stud industry, more than it has to date, and infect and affect the potential for the industry. Heavens above, it has enough problems trying to sell the end result on the world market and it really does initially need to be looked at as an exceptional circumstance problem, or something similar. I urge the government to revisit that urgently because there are people out there who are desperate to the point of seeking charity to get by. Having said that, I commend the bill to the House.13:49:0013069Thompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON84CBlairLP10—I am very pleased to be able to speak today on the Farm Household Support Amendment Bill 1999 . The bill repeals section 6C of the Farm Household Support Act 1992. As a result, the deadline for restart re-establishment grants, which was 30 November 1999, will be extended by legislative instrument to 30 June 2000. These grants are an important part of the Farm Family Restart Scheme, which was launched in 1997 as part of the government's Agriculture—Advancing Australia policy. FFRS is about assisting families who are on extremely low incomes and in financial difficulty. They get into a corner where they cannot borrow further. They are probably having difficulty servicing the debt which they have already. They are facing the likelihood that they will have to sell their property and move onto welfare support.The restart re-establishment grant comes into play when the farmer finally accepts what for many is the inevitable and they agree to leave their farming life behind and make the change from farming into another way of life. The grant provides up to $45,000 to help them make this decision. By 30 June this year, 1,208 families were receiving income support through the FFRS. In the previous calendar year of 1998, 172 farmers leaving agricultural received restart re-establishment grants. These numbers are getting old. My sources tell me that reliance on the FFRS is now much more widespread and that restart re-establishment grants are in much greater demand. Why is that? The number of people who can be supported by a farm, in most areas, is rapidly decreasing. The amount of land needed for a living area is increasing rapidly. Farmers are struggling to remain viable on properties that are marginal when the future is that their struggle is likely to get harder and harder.Farming is a hit and miss affair. One big crop or a favourable movement in commodity prices at the right time can have a big impact. On the other hand, years of never-ending drought or increasing interest rates will grind the struggling farmer into the ground in a way that is absolutely merciless. There are two ways to look at this. The optimist would say that struggling farmers can strike it rich just as the same as goldminers can. Today they would be pointing to the amazing rebound in the value of pork. Farmers who were living on the precipice just last year are doing very well out of pork this year. What saved them? In part, it was something as unexpected as an outbreak in disease in pigs in Malaysia.The pessimists would look at farming like gambling addiction. They look at the success of the pork producers and warn that disease could strike in Australia just as easily as in Malaysia. They would regard the fight to remain viable as a totally unequal one. They would correctly point out that in agricultural commodities returns today are no better than they were 20 years ago, while the cost of business inputs has increased many times over. The pessimists would say that the years of the family farm are severely numbered. Why? Because anyone battling to stay afloat without huge liquid capital reserves has the odds firmly stacked against them.This is the environment in which farmers operate and it is why we have tailored the FFRS and the restart re-establishment grants to meet the needs of people who get into difficulty. My electorate extends within a couple of kilometres of Toowoomba, which is the main centre for the Darling Downs, one of Australia's greatest farming regions. Within the boundaries of Blair, agriculture is a major source of income. It includes the Lockyer, one of the most fertile valleys in the world, as well as the South Burnett and Kingaroy, which is Australia's peanut capital. But it is an area in which changing market opportunities, economies of scale, urban encroachment, technology and competition are driving massive change in practically every single agricultural endeavour.I would like to use the opportunity, as my speech is occurring immediately before question time, to move into an area of my speech which I had been intending to make towards the end; that is, I would like to take some time to look through the eyes of an organisation that was set up to deal with the human side of the problems to which I refer. The group I am referring to is Bush Connection, which is based in Toowoomba just on the edge of my electorate. It is the only organisation of its type in the country.Bush Connection is facing increasing demand, not because more people are becoming aware of its service or because it is extending its service far beyond the Downs and the electorate of Blair. They have been handling two cases a week and now they are dealing with four a week. Bush Connection specialises in counselling. Mary-Louise North and her two assistants deal with people driven to contemplate suicide. The member for Calare spoke about people who are driven to accept charity. These people put it at one in 10 cases where people are driven to commit suicide or to contemplate suicide driven by the depth of despair that they feel. They deal with families torn apart and children practically abandoned as a result of the immense pressures involved when a farming lifestyle goes bad. They work as advocates for farming families in the most desperate situations. They call in financial advisers and lawyers and they sit in on negotiations with banks. They do everything they can to help people exit farming with dignity.To convey the real importance of Bush Connection and what they do, I will refer to a true story of a case which they handled this very week. Bush Connection was called out to a place—I will not say where it was—where both partners in the family are suicidal. The banks have moved in on their place and the family, with seven children, is in tatters. They have no electricity, no running water and have been washing in the river. For the last month, they have been living out of a creek, that is to say, all food that they have been consuming they have caught in the creek. I cannot believe just how bad that is, but this is exactly what has been going on.The youngest of the seven children is in grade 1; that would be a six-year-old child. That child has been sent away to the local town because his parents do not have enough money for fuel and are not able to take the kid to school every day. Here is a child who is living in a hostel at the age of six. He is going to school every day under his own steam and then going home at weekends. It is an incredibly bad situation.This is not in any way a disreputable family. This family is well educated, with a fine community spirit. In fact, recently a local resident wandered away from a farm up the road, an elderly man. There was a huge search for that person. After the search was over and the helicopters had gone, the three eldest boys in this family set out on their horses and together located the missing man, saving his life because he was very badly dehydrated and at death's door.To think that a family like that is in this incredible position. They were not aware of the FFRS and the opportunities that that provides to people in their desperate plight. In fact, Mary-Louise North was telling me that when the father of the family became aware of those opportunities, he just about fell off his chair. Recently he had taken to leaving his farm trying to get work elsewhere. He had damaged his back at work and then sought a disability support pension, and it had taken Centrelink six weeks to get that pension to him. That is a terrible situation, but if the guy had only been aware of the FFRS—and no doubt it will lead on for them to the restart re-establishment grants—then he could certainly have begun to address his plight from a real position of strength and realisation of a direction that could take him out of this terrible void. Instead, basically he was beg ging for anything he could get out of Centrelink to keep him going.It is a terrible story of people on the edge. According to Bush Connection, this is something that is repeated regularly. I have to say that mostly these people—and this certainly includes the family in the case I referred to—hate living in such desperate times. The burdens, the difficulties and the family breakups that are involved drive them to the very edge. It is a difficult situation and we need to look at the excellent work that is being done by Bush Connection.4K4ANDERSONMr Anderson—It is a great organisation.84CThompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON—The Deputy Prime Minister endorses their activities. We need to look at similar groups in other parts of Australia. When they are prepared to move in, to counsel people in such deep financial difficulty and in such personal turmoil, to move in and help them get their life back in order, they are exactly the type of group we need. We can sit here and talk about people exiting farming, but we just sound like bureaucrats and people in banks who are judging the lives of these people from a distance. They are choosing to withdraw and to say that that family has lost its opportunity to continue in farming. They are prepared to put them out onto the street. That is a terrible situation which, unfortunately, happens too regularly. If we could only have more groups like Bush Connection, then we would have greater opportunity to redress those deep difficulties.Debate interrupted.Ministerial Arrangements1307114:00:0013071Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Mr Speaker, I inform the House that the Minister for Aged Care will be absent from question time today for the reasons I outlined yesterday, and the Minister for Health and Aged Care will take questions in her absence.Miscellaneous1307114:01:0013071Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Mr Speaker, I seek your indulgence to observe a very significant event today.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Indulgence is granted.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr HOWARD—Pat Farmer has almost completed his extraordinary run around Australia, and I and Senator Faulkner, on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition, greeted him this morning. I would like to acknowledge the presence in the distinguished visitors gallery of Pat, his mother Mary and brother Bernie, and I think all Australians will give them a very special welcome.Pat's run is quite an extraordinary achievement. Pat dedicated the run to the memory of his late wife, and he was inspired by the story of Donald Mackay, who rode a bicycle around the Australian colonies in the lead-up to Federation in 1901. Pat was accompanied on his very long journey not only by his mother but also by his brother and his two children.He spoke very movingly this morning outside Parliament House of his love of Australia, his commitment to his family and the inspiration he felt, as he moved around Australia, meeting so many thousands upon thousands of Australians. He broke no fewer than 13 official ultra-marathon records, including the Queensland long run record, the Northern Territory continuous long run record, the Tropic of Capricorn continuous long run record, the prestigious 10,000-kilometre long run record and the new world long run record for continuous running.We admire what you have done, Pat. It is a great inspiration to us all. You are a wonderful, resonant example of what it is to be an Australian, and we thank you for your contribution to this country.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I extend the same indulgence to the Leader of the Opposition.14:03:0013071Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—You are a bit early, Pat! We expected you a bit later. I guess in achieving those records the logical conclusion was that you would be early. I recollect that you came in early to Perth a while back, and the last time I saw you you were circling the showground.You have been an inspiration to all your fellow Australians over the course of your run. I know it has been a labour of love for you, for your family in particular, and a labour in which you honoured the memory of your late wife. Having seen Brooke and Dillon on the run, I am not sure they fully understand your achievement or your accommodation arrangements. Nevertheless, they will be able to look back on your welcome to this parliament and the welcome that you have had around the country as matters of great pride and great family achievement. I understand that you are going to hang up the shoes after this particular exercise. When you look at all the things that you have done with marathon running, that is more than amply justified, should you choose to do it.The Federation of Australia was made in the small towns of Australia. The big cities were equivocal, but rural and regional Australia were not. They were the supporters of Federation. You have re-established that view amongst so many people in small communities around this country. Your records are there as tangibles, but the intangible things are the spirit you put in the heart of those at the one mayoral and shire president reception after another that you have been to as you have done your 80 kilometres a day. I am not sure that many people realise that, after running more than two marathons a day, you have generally followed it up with a reception and a speech that night and have inspired thousands of people around this country who might not have heard the message of the Centenary of Federation celebrations. You have made an enormous difference in that regard.In the course of this, I understand you have drunk over 1,500 litres of water and eaten a thousand bananas and 81,375 grams of prunes, and your challenge was not to lose any weight. You have gone through 18 pairs of running shoes and you have been a test bed for the CSIRO for the entirety of your run. So the message that you have taken to and the inspiration that you have given your fellow Australians will not only live in the annals of our sporting history but also live in the annals of Australian science. We congratulate you on a truly excellent contribution to your nation.Questions Without Notice130721307213072Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, are you aware that the Manjimup Community Food Centre in WA—a not-for-profit grocery store—that has provided cheap groceries to pensioners and health care cardholders for nine years has announced that it will not be able to continue to operate with the GST because of the costs of complying? How do you justify a tax that puts a vital community service out of business, sending the 10 elderly volunteers who staff it back home and forcing pensioners to either travel 200 kilometres to the next community food store or pay more for their groceries locally?13072Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—As I do with other examples put to me by the opposition, I will examine what the Leader of the Opposition has said. If there is anything I can add as a result of that examination, I will. The Leader of the Opposition in his question spoke of the impact of the GST on the charitable sector.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—He didn't, actually.ZD4Mr HOWARD—Oh, he didn't? He is not talking about the GST anymore?PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—No, I asked you about the Manjimup Community Food Centre.ZD4Mr HOWARD—Oh, I see. You didn't say anything about the GST?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister! The Prime Minister has the call.ZD4Mr HOWARD—The Leader of the Opposition talked about the impact of the GST. I have just had drawn to my attention some remarks that have been made by a couple of people who know something about the impact of the GST on services provided to the needy in our community. One of them is a spokesman for an organisation called the Salvation Army, which of course is probably the best known and amongst the most respected welfare organisations in this country, if not in the world. Their spokesman being interviewed on Canberra radio this morning had this to say: The Salvation Army is now comfortable with the GST with the compensation that is being provided by the government. We believe that the government is providing adequate compensation, that in fact the government is providing funding for ongoing education. We have signed off on it more or less with still a little bit of tinkering around the edges and some discussion but they're only just minor discussions.In other words, the spokesman for the Salvation Army is saying that the Salvation Army is now `comfortable with the GST with the compensation that is being provided by the government'. I would have thought if you were talking about the attitude of the welfare sector—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, my point of order goes to relevance. I could make all the points about St Vincent de Paul and others, but that was not the question. The question was about the Manjimup centre, which is closing as a result of their not being able to administer the GST.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Prime Minister was asked a question, as I heard it, about a store that was providing advantageous facilities to those who are disadvantaged. He was responding about other welfare provisions, which I thought was entirely in order and I call him.ZD4Mr HOWARD—Going beyond the Salvation Army, we go to a spokesman for the Wesley Mission, also a very highly respected, generous, effective provider of social welfare in this country. Its spokesman, Mr Richard Menteith, had this to say on the ABC 7.30 Report televised last night:Wesley Mission has always seen the GST as a significant improvement on the other tax paradigms and regimes that we've had in previous years.I am not surprised that he would say that because it is a significant improvement on the wholesale sales tax system that the Leader of the Opposition wants to bring back to the Australian tax system. He then went on to say:We need to recognise that the tax changes, the tax reforms, are here to stay. We need to learn how to work within the rules.Basically, we've got to not worry about the difficulties that these may introduce but, rather, have a look at the way in which we can adjust our methods of doing things.Can I say in relation to those two organisations, amongst the most respected welfare organisations in the nation—indeed the Salvation Army's repute for compassion is world renowned as indeed are the various activities of the Wesley Mission—I think both of those spokesmen more accurately understand and reflect the intelligent view in the welfare sector. They are not intimidated. They are not encouraged by the ridiculous scare campaign of the Leader of the Opposition.1307313073Bishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP83PCurtinLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer detail to the House the government's strategy to reduce the tax burden for individual Australians and their families? How does the government's plan compare to alternatives and to previous attempts at tax reform?13073Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Curtin for her question. I can answer her question by saying that from 1 July next year 80 per cent of Australians are going to face a marginal income tax rate of 30 per cent or less. That is great news for the working families of Australia. If you happen to be on $50,000 at the moment you can go onto a tax rate of 48½ per cent—that is the Labor Party tax rate. For people who are on $50,000, under the coalition from 1 July next year that 47c marginal income tax rate will come down to 30 per cent. That will be a great thing for the working families of Australia.In addition to that, the government will be increasing family allowances. Let us take the example of a one-income couple with one child under five years of age. That couple currently on a salary of $29,000 would be paying under Labor's tax rate $6,317 in tax, and under the coalition's new tax rates on 1 July next year they will be paying $5,515—a saving of $802 in income tax alone. But we have to take into account family assistance. At the moment they would qualify for family assistance of $3,127. Under the new family assistance rates next year, they will qualify for family assistance of $5,355—an increase of $2,228. That family, with tax cuts and family assistance, will have $58.27 per week additional assistance. That will be a great thing for the families of Australia.The Labor Party of course would have you believe they are in favour of income tax cuts; they are just against the measure that would pay for them. Where have we heard this before—the idea that you could be against indirect tax rises but in favour of income tax cuts? That was actually put in a statute. It was not just a promise; it was l-a-w before the 1993 election. The Labor Party said you could have income tax cuts without any indirect tax changes. Here is the bill, which is still law, which put the income tax law that was promised before 1993 right off the record to a date which was to be proclaimed not later than 1 July 1994. There is the law. Those income tax cuts under the Labor Party were not proclaimed for one day. There was not one cent, one day, of income tax cuts.The modern Labor Party are basically trying to do the whole stunt over again. They would come in here and tell you, `We're against GST and we're in favour of income tax cuts.' What they will never do is tell you how they could possibly be paid for. On the one hand, they say that they are against GST and they support wholesale sales tax. On the other hand, they say that maybe they are in favour of keeping GST, but they will roll it back. The immortal words of `nowhere man', the Leader of the Opposition, are `I am on an uncharted road with an unknown destination.' Here is the nowhere man, the Leader of the Opposition. He is on an unchartered road with an unknown destination. One day he is for the wholesale sales tax, along with modern, progressive taxation systems to be found in Botswana and Swaziland. The next day, he says, `I am going to keep the GST, but I will roll it back. It is an uncharted road with an unknown destination.' This is a man who could not stand press scrutiny for an hour.When he was asked yesterday what his policy on the GST was, he rose to the dispatch box and said, `We will take it off health.' Well, health is GST free. After that was pointed out to him, he said, `Oh, well, I'll reconsider that.' He had a policy yester day I think for 30 seconds at the dispatch box. He was going to take it off health until he realised it was off health. He is on his uncharted road to an unknown destination. He is the nowhere man of modern taxation who stands up here because he does not have a policy shred to rely on in his life. He asks all these little questions to hide the real weakness in this debate—the complete and utter lack of policy from the Labor Party.1307413074Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, will you confirm that, as reported in this morning's Daily Telegraph , membership fees to community service organisations like Lions, Apex and Rotary are already being subjected to the GST? Are you aware that these organisations are already struggling to attract volunteers to assist with their important work, like the Lions hearing dogs; the Hart walker, a device that helps children with cerebral palsy to walk; Operation Teddy Bear, giving teddy bears to kids from broken homes; and organ donation appeals? Won't your new GST make it even more difficult for charities to attract members who volunteer their time to raise much needed funds?13074Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I am not going to get into details of particular organisations without further investigation. But I can acknowledge that there are certain transitional provisions that mean that where the GST is payable in relation to club memberships, then the imposition of the GST or the anticipation of the GST is being taken account of by a number of those organisations, given that membership fees paid now will cover a period beyond 1 July next year. That was made perfectly clear in the transitional legislation that was introduced by the Treasurer.1307413074Moylan, Judi, MPMrs MOYLAN4V5PearceLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, small business is looking at a period of strong growth next year due to the sound economic management of the economy. Will you inform the House how small business will further benefit from the government's reforms to the tax system? How does this contrast with other policies that have been advocated in this area?13075Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the member for Pearce for her question. There is no question that the continuing prosperity of small business is good for Australia—it is good for people who are looking for a job; it is good for boosting the living standards of all Australians. That is why this government is unashamedly pro small business. We are very keen about and do give high priority to small business. One of the reasons Australia is doing well today is that we have encouraged our small business community to get out there and invest, take a punt, make things happen, employ more people.When we were first elected, we set up the Bell committee, which was to go around looking at red tape on small business. In a nutshell, we want small business to spend more time running their businesses than they do filling out the red tape put on them by government. One of the Charlie Bell committee recommendations was a new system of tax administration. This is terribly important for small business. I notice that yesterday and a week or so ago we had a question about the business activity statement and the two-page form that small business will have to fill out. Yesterday we had a stunt from the Labor Party about paperwork. Having the Labor Party talk about the concerns of small business is a bit of a joke. Not one of those opposite have ever been in small business.Honourable members interjecting—WI4Mr REITH—The ACTU is becoming a small business, that is true. Most of those opposite are former trade union officials. They would not know a small business if they fell over it. What incredible hypocrisy. I asked for a sample of the paperwork which today confronts small business as a result of the tax system that the Labor Party put in place. Just for starters, we have got one form, plus the information to go with it. What did Labor have when they were in office? They had a minimum of 21 forms against our form. They had sales tax, a reportable payments declaration, a voluntary agreement for pre scribed payments, a payment summary, a payee declaration, prescribed payments, a prescribed payments householder payments summary, an application for registration as a group employer, a paying authority notification form and on and on. And that is before you even take out all the advices that go with them.The fact is that when we get to 1 July we are putting in place a much better system for small business when it comes to tax administration. The incredible hypocrisy of the Labor Party is that on this one issue they support the introduction of a pay as you go system. We are getting rid of reportable payments, prescribed payments, PAYE and provisional tax—just to mention four of them. That is a huge benefit to the small business community, and yet the Labor Party are out there running a scare campaign on the basis of paperwork. We are for the first time as a government tackling the problem of paperwork for small business, and what is your policy? You have had two good policies recently. You supported the capital gains tax initiative, and that is a great benefit for small business. Halving capital gains tax is really putting incentive back into the system for small business. The second thing that you have been supporting is the pay as you go system. The massive attack that we have made on red tape is a huge boost to small business. We look forward to its introduction. I have got the pile of old forms here, if you are strong enough to carry it out.1307513075Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, yesterday you told the House:In relation to any commercial activities, so far as the charity is concerned, there is no application.Prime Minister, hasn't your own tax office ruled that the commercial activities of charities will be taxable? Didn't you get it wrong yesterday? If you do not understand your own tax, how do you expect the thousands of charity workers to understand it?13075Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Yesterday I was speaking in relation to an activity under $100,000.DT4CREANMr Crean—Mr Speaker—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I call the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.DT4CREANMr Crean—He has answered the wrong question again. He does not understand anything.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. I had called him on the presumption that he had a point of order.DT4CREANMr Crean—Are you ruling that he has fully answered my question?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition knows as well as almost anyone in this chamber that the standing orders have been adhered to.1307613076St Clair, Stuart, MPMr St CLAIR84BNew EnglandNP10—My question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. How will the government's new tax system and broader business tax reforms benefit regional Australia and small and large communities from Geraldton to Guyra? Are there any alternatives to the government's plans?13076Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for his question. The fact is that the government's tax reforms will provide a major boost to rural and regional Australia. In the first instance, the point has to be made that rural economies of the sort that you have just described are export economies. The essential nature of rural economies is that they are export economies. The first thing that tax reform of the sort that we are talking about does in this country is remove the embedded tax burden on exports—$4½ billion of embedded taxes on exports; $900 million a year for the farm sector alone. I have heard no suggestion from the other side at all that they even understand this problem, let alone have a policy solution for it. None of them have ever exported. Well, they have got in the way of a few exports and got in the way of the jobs of the people who depend upon exports, but they have never grappled with the question of the embedded tax burden on our exports.Transport costs too are dramatically reduced. In a country like ours, dependent upon exports, massive reductions in transport costs are very important. This is the last year of provisional tax. Hated by small businesses and farmers everywhere, Labor's provisional tax goes. The burden of capital gains tax has already been lifted. What is the alternative? Well, it is Labor's, which in a nutshell is higher taxes and higher costs, particularly in rural and regional areas. Coming to those transport costs, the cost of diesel for heavy transport is slashed by 23c a litre. Costs are further reduced, with all wholesale sales tax going.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Farmers do not pay that.4K4Mr ANDERSON—Of course farmers pay that. He does not understand. It is built into everything they do because they depend on transport. It is called `embedded'. You do not get a concession on wholesale sales tax on your truck.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Prime Minister will address his remarks through the chair.4K4Mr ANDERSON—Mr Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition does not understand the nature of the tax system that they defend. All excise on rail goes, and GST as a business input on fuel goes as well. By this time next year, provisional tax will be a thing of the past, and capital gains tax reforms are already in place, bringing a new confidence in business and retirement planning in regional Australia.Let us come back to this alternative for a moment. By default, it is obviously the defence of the existing system. It is the defence of a broken system. We know it is broken because of 1993, when they told us that we could have tax cuts, l-a-w law tax cuts, without increases in any of the other taxes. As soon as they got into power, what happened? They have been harping on about fuel taxes in recent days. What did you do to the fuel excise immediately upon your return? You pushed it 10c up on leaded and 5c on unleaded, with commensurate rises in transport fuel costs. What hypocrisy for you people to talk about fuel costs in rural areas! Look at your record on it. Then we come, of course, to your refusal to ever move on provisional tax. You never even reduced the uplift factor. We had the introduction of capital gains tax, and it grew much more rapidly than even your own figures anticipated. You did not cut it. You certainly did not offer to remove it for small businesses and for farmers in the way that we have recently done.So where is Labor's solution? They say they have this new-found concern for rural and regional Australia. Where is their solution to the problem of the embedded tax burden on our exports? Where is the leadership on this vitally important issue for rural and regional Australia? It is all about trying to look good on a lazy indulgent surf on a wave of a broken tax system that, firstly, will not boost export competitiveness, secondly, will not help regional jobs and, thirdly, will not meet our future expenditure needs. It will not meet our future expenditure needs unless we keep repeating Labor's 1993 performance—pushing up fuel excise, pushing up wholesale sales tax and pushing up personal tax rates. It is a broken system. That is the only alternative on record, and they keep promoting it.1307713077Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—I ask my question again to the Prime Minister. I refer to his earlier answer, the answer to the last question I asked him. Prime Minister, as page 9624 of Hansard will indicate, the question you were asked yesterday referred to a threshold of charitable sponsorship over $220,000. It made no reference to the below $100,000 threshold which you have just alluded to. I ask the question again.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Which question?DT4Mr CREAN—This is what you said in answer to that question yesterday:In relation to any commercial activities, so far as the charity is concerned, there is no application.Hasn't your own tax ruling indicated that `commercial activities of charities will be taxable'? Didn't you get it wrong yesterday and today? If you do not understand your own tax, how do you expect those people who are implementing it to understand it?13077Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—In quoting my answer you left out the first phrase: `if the activity is under a certain level'. If it is under $100,000, it is not caught in the net.DT4CREANMr Crean—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order that goes to relevance. The Prime Minister's answer to the question could not have referred to a threshold below $100,000, because the question did not relate to that; nor did his answer yesterday relate to it. He should answer the question.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition knows perfectly well there are all sorts of standing orders formulated around the way a question is framed. There are a few standing orders formulated around the way an answer is framed. The only requirement is that the answer be relevant to the question, and the Prime Minister was most certainly that.1307713077Forrest, John, MPMr FORRESTNV5MalleeNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. I ask the minister if he would inform the House of the benefits for primary producers of the government's business tax reforms.13077Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—I am delighted to respond to the member's question and to remind the House that the government's new tax reform will, as the Deputy Prime Minister mentioned, sweep $900 million of taxes from farmers' budgets. For the first time, farmers will be able to compete on a level playing field with the tax systems of their competitors around the world. The facts are that Australian farmers, along with those in Swaziland, Botswana and the Solomon Islands, are the only ones left in the world who have to bear the burden of wholesale sales tax and a range of other indirect taxes in their production costs. That puts them at a significant disadvantage.When the fruit producers from the electorate of the honourable member for Mallee are selling their fruit around the world, they have a tax burden that other countries do not have to bear. But when fruit comes into Australia from other parts of the world, it comes in without those taxes. Australian farmers have one hand tied behind their back, because they are paying these embedded taxes on their production. By introducing a modern taxation system, we will be able to compete much more fairly. When New Zealand cheese comes into Australia without the burden of wholesale sales taxes and an old-fashioned tax system, it will compete evenly with Australian cheese. Australian farmers will not have to bear the cost of the WST and fuel tax on their transport which helped to make them uncompetitive.This is a significant turnaround for farmers—a real advance for them to enable them to compete fairly and evenly with farmers around the world and to help boost our exports. Around 70 per cent of Australian farm produce is exported, so it is vital that our farmers not be handicapped by tax penalties placed on them by old-fashioned taxation systems. That is Labor's way; it is not our way for the future. We are determined to give Australian farmers a fair go and to give them support in competing in the difficult markets around the world.1307813078Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—My question is to the Prime Minister. In light of the Remuneration Tribunal's recommendation on a new formula for setting MPs' pay, do you agree a link with male total average weekly earnings—and, therefore, pension increases—would be a far more acceptable link than with full-time adult earnings? Given the suggested increase substantially lifts the taxpayer funded component of MPs' superannuation, will you commit your government to reform our super scheme in line with changes planned by several state governments?13078Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I thank the member for Calare for his question. I will analyse what he put; I do not know offhand what the mathematical consequences are. As far as the impact on salary is concerned, I would not think offhand it would be dramatically different. I particularly welcome the fact that the Remuneration Tribunal has made a recommendation that in future the incomes of members of parliament will be adjusted in accordance with community movements and community standards. I have long thought myself that that would be a very good idea. We have a very unsatisfactory situation at present where, by dint of the former system falling over as a result of other changes which in themselves were very desirable, we have had a three-year period during which there has been no rise at all. Inevitably, the adjustment, when it comes along, looks bigger than in reality it is. That is exactly what has happened on this occasion.On the whole, I think the recommendation made by the tribunal is very fair and reasonable. I know that there is community hostility to any adjustment in the remuneration of members of parliament but, unless you hold the view that it should never be increased, both sides of parliament have to accept that there is going to be criticism. I think the Remuneration Tribunal's approach on this occasion is fairly balanced. It has to be stressed again that all they have done is to compute what the basic salary would have been if it had been adjusted in accordance with movements in average salaries over the last three years. So, unless you are asserting that no adjustment at all over that three-year period was defensible, I do not think you could have a fairer way of adjusting it.As to the other things, I will have a look at what the honourable member said. I do not undertake to argue for a change to what the Remuneration Tribunal has put. There have of course been some changes on superannuation. We have had this debate before, and no doubt it will go on. I think there are arguments for and against. On the one hand, I know why people criticise the superannuation but, on the other hand, the level of contributions made by members of parliament is above the level of the average contribution made by many other people. It is also the case that, when you take into account the aggregate packages of members of parliament—particularly at a ministerial or opposition leader level compared with people discharging similar responsibilities in the business community—I do not think anybody can argue that they are over-remunerated.It is not the most popular cause in the nation, but I think on any objective test the Remuneration Tribunal's response has been pretty sensible. I would hope that it will receive the sensible, thoughtful support of those people who bother to look objectively, because public service in this place is important. You need to have proper provision for people on both sides who choose to enter parliament. A lot of people sacrifice more lucrative careers to do so. Some do not, but in the nature of things you cannot adjust according to those two groups. I think the overall stance taken by the tribunal is reasonable and that is why the government has indicated that, subject to the phasing in, it will support it.1307913079Somlyay, Alex, MPMr SOMLYAYZT4FairfaxLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Community Services. Will the minister inform the House of the benefits to Australian families and self-funded retirees from reforms to Australia's taxation system?13079Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPCommunity Services10—I would like to thank the honourable member for his question. There is no doubt that, if you have stronger families, you produce a stronger society and a better Australia. That is why this government has a very proud record, particularly our economic record, in providing a much better environment for families. There is no question that the new tax system will be a lot fairer because it recognises the costs of raising children. Our tax reform will provide $11.9 billion in personal income tax cuts, and that goes straight back to families. In addition, there will be $2.5 billion in assistance to families under the new family tax benefit parts A and B.From July 2000, the new Family Assistance Office will deliver the family tax benefit parts A and B, child-care benefit, maternity allowances and maternity immunisation allowances to all eligible families. The new Family Assistance Office is a joint venture between Centrelink, the ATO and the Health Insurance Commission. But it is not just the two million families that will benefit substantially from those income tax reductions and the increase in family assistance but also older Australians, whom I think this side of House looks after significantly better than the Australian Labor Party does. Of course we also have pensioners and people on low incomes. For the first time, if you are a single pensioner, you will not have to pay tax for up to $14,500, and for couples the figure is $24,500.Mr Swan interjecting—XJ6Mr ANTHONY—That means that all of those elderly Australians, even if they are in the member for Lilley's electorate, will not have to pay any taxation—which is far better. And 50,000 self-funded retirees will now become eligible through the relaxation of the pension income and assets test, along with the abolition of provisional tax. With the abolition of the WST, the substantial income tax cuts to families, the increase in family assistance and, of course, those special provisions now for older Australians, this new tax system will substantially benefit even the electors in Richmond.1307913079Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—My question without notice is addressed to the Prime Minister. Do you recall saying on 5 November 1997 that:I can categorically say to anybody now who goes into a nursing home . . . that under no circumstances will you have to sell your family home.Prime Minister, can you explain why the Cardinal Stepinac Nursing Home late last year forced an elderly man to sign a contract—a copy of which I am holding here today—signing over his Enmore home in return for a bed as he lay terminally ill in a hospital bed? Weren't you being hypocritical in attending the opening of a new wing at this nursing home when it was financed by a breach of your commitment to elderly Australians?13079Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—In answer to the honourable member for Lowe, I will have a look at exactly what I said on that date in November 1997. I must say that I would be more disposed to accept that the member for Lowe is correctly representing me than some of those who are closer to me in his party. I will have a look at what he said. I certainly do recall the circumstances in which I would have made comments to that effect. It was in the wake of the decision taken by the government to abandon the policy it had announced in relation to the accommodation bond so that the pressure that would have created for those situations would not arise.It remains my belief, my understanding, that the way in which the nursing home fee system, the accommodation fee, operates does not of itself compel the circumstances that you have alluded to. I think the House will appreciate that there can be other circumstances and other explanations. I do not think the House should accept for a moment that, if that person was obliged to do what you have described—and I am not saying that he was or was not; I will investigate it—that was a necessary consequence of the government's policy. It was not our policy to do that, it is not our policy to do that, but I will certainly have the matter investigated.1308010000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for Dunkley.83DMURPHYMr Murphy—Mr Speaker, I seek leave to table the contract.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I have recognised the member for Dunkley. I will entertain the member for Lowe's request at the conclusion of the member for Dunkley's question.13080Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, are you aware of recent comments regarding job security and wages? Do these comments accurately reflect the benefits to workers from the Howard government's workplace relations reforms, such as those enjoyed by the growing number of working men and women of Dunkley?13080Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the honourable member for his question.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—I notice that the member for Lilley is instructing the member for Lowe not to give it to me.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—You're a bully!ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—I'm not a bully. I'm just offering to have a look at it.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I am not impressed by the cross-chamber conversation when I am on my feet. Having had an occasion yesterday to rise, I did not expect to repeat the performance today. In fact, as I recall, I had allowed a question to the minister and he was in the process of answering it. The conferring that was occurring on the other side of the chamber was a matter that could only be brought to my attention by someone deliberately rising and bringing it to my attention.WI4Mr REITH—The question related to comments about job security and wages. The whole question of the increase in people's wages in the last few years and the consequences of changes that we have made to the Workplace Relations Act are very important, as are the allied comments about job security. I note that the Leader of the Opposition this morning has been at the ACTU council meeting, taking his instructions on policy. In those remarks, he referred to developments in the labour market which go particularly both to job security and casual employment. This is a common theme from the Labor Party. But what they do not appreciate, let alone ever acknowledge, is that there have been quite substantial improvements on both of these criteria. I relayed to the House the other day how the shadow minister back in 1997 said that there were five tests by which we would benchmark the government's performance. On each and every one, the fact is that we have come up trumps with the reforms that we have introduced.The question of job security is certainly important. It was an issue in the 1996 election, when we were first returned to government. Just after that election, a frontbencher now for the Labor Party, the member for Melbourne, said that jobs were no longer secure; that was one of the reasons, he said, that Labor had lost in 1996. It is very interesting to look at some of the data on this, and in particular a table of job security going back 20 to 25 years. When you look at that and ask whether or not people felt secure in their jobs, whether or not they felt safe, the lowest point for job security in recent times has not been when we have been in office but when the Labor Party was in office. Who was the employment minister back in 1992 or thereabouts, holding the recent all-time low record for job security? None other than the member for Brand, the nowhere man, the Leader of the Opposition, the man with no policies and no ticker to develop them. Those are the figures on job security.But another sort of common theme that we get out of the Labor Party is about casual employment. This is a pretty interesting one from them as well because they are always saying that we, the coalition, as a result of our reforms are casualising the labour force. In fact, the official figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics show that that is completely untrue. In fact, as a result of our reforms, the proportion of all part-time employees who are employed on a casual basis has actually fallen under the Workplace Relations Act from 67.5 per cent in August 1996 to 65.4 per cent in August 1998. Not only have you had a fall off in casual employment in that regard, but also the proportion of those people on permanent employment has risen from 32.5 per cent to 34.6 per cent, an increase of 2.1 per cent.So, rather than this increasing casualisation, when you actually check your facts—you ought to check your facts before you make these claims—you see that under our reforms we have arrested the problem that was created under you. What have you done? You have opposed every single reform measure which would actually deal with the problems you yourselves have identified. This is typical of the Labor Party. They do not do their homework. That underpins the fact that they do not have any policies—although today the Leader of the Opposition did announce another one. That was on Australian workplace agreements, which is one of the changes we introduced which has given us higher productivity and higher wages, when he said that he was going to follow the Queensland Labor Party policy to scrub AWAs.On all these benchmarks, the system that we have introduced, which Labor opposed up hill and down dale, has produced significant benefits for the average person. The last one I want to mention relates to wages. I think one of the proudest boasts of this government is, in fact, made for us by the ACTU. When it was announced that Greg Combet was taking over from Mr Kelty, Mr Combet said—and I quote from his document Unions @ Work:Since 1996, the Living Wage has achieved an increase, after inflation, of 9.1% for the lowest paid workers—a record admired by our counterparts overseas.The fact is workers under us are better off. They have had a far better deal. When our tax package is introduced next year, there will be more benefits still.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member for Lowe wish to get the call?83DMURPHYMr Murphy—Yes, Mr Speaker. Is it now in order for me to seek leave to table the contract?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Is leave granted?ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Mr Speaker, the only reason that I was reluctant about tabling is some question of confidentiality and I was genuinely seeking to help the honourable member by saying, `If you give me the contract, I will undertake to investigate the matter.' Since the member for Lowe asked the question, I have been informed—I think this information is correct—that the matter to which you referred, the allegation, was carried in the Sun-Herald on 5 December last that a man was forced to donate his house in order to obtain admission to a nursing home. The matter referred to by the Sun-Herald —according to my advice again—is currently under investigation through the protective mechanisms that are in place and, should the allegations be substantiated, the department will take appropriate action. That is the advice that has been given to me by my department. The advice is that it is the Cardinal Stepinac village and the complaint was lodged with the complaints resolution scheme by a solicitor in August 1999. The matter is being investigated, and there are protective mechanisms. If it has happened, whatever action is appropriate under those mechanisms will be taken. Every assistance will be given to your constituent and to you to see that the right thing is done.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I have allowed this to run because of the confidentiality provisions.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—If the honourable member is quite happy on confidentiality, I do not mind it being tabled but that is the reason. There are other documents that people seek to table where we have other reasons for refusing.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I simply need to know from the Prime Minister whether or not leave is granted.Mr McMullan interjecting—ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—I am trying to help.Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Manager of Opposition Business will have the call when the House has come to order. It is fair to say that there is no provision in the standing orders for the action taken by the Prime Minister. But as the Prime Minister's intent was clearly to facilitate the member for Lowe and his constituent, I allowed that to run. On the fair assumption that the Manager of Opposition Business also seeks to assist both the member for Lowe and his constituent, I will hear him.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—I only wish to say to the Prime Minister that I ensured, with the member for Lowe, before question time that the document being brought in would have all the personal details removed so that it could be tabled without breaching confidentiality.Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Is the member for Lowe seeking leave to table a document?83DMURPHYMr Murphy—I am confident that confidentiality can be protected. Yes, I am seeking leave to table the contract.Leave granted.1308213082Griffin, Alan, MPMr GRIFFINVU5BruceALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Are you aware that the health department says that a principle for providing GST free status to medicinal products is to `ensure that the tax does not apply to the treatment of those who are sick'? I also refer to the statement by the Treasurer earlier in question time that `health is GST free'. Are you also aware that a number of commonly used medicinal products listed on the Repatriation Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme—such as pinetarsol solution and egoderm cream—if bought over the counter from a pharmacist will attract your 10 per cent GST? Given that these sorts of products are used by 1.3 million Australians who suffer from eczema, psoriasis and other skin complaints, does this imply that these people are not sick; or are they just not sick enough for GST purposes?13082Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—As the honourable member is aware, after the policy was announced and endorsed by the Australian people there were extensive consultations undertaken and recommendations made by committees. As a result of that, certain categories were exempted and others were not. I will investigate what the honourable gentleman says to ensure that that has been done in accordance with those criteria.Ms Macklin interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Jagajaga!DT4CREANMr Crean—Do you know what this tax applies to?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! Deputy Leader of the Opposition, I am trying to get some order in the House and I am not currently being assisted.DT4CREANMr Crean—We are trying to get some answers.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.1308213082Thompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON84CBlairLP10—My question is to the Minister for Forestry and Conservation. Would the minister inform the House of progress with the Queensland Regional Forest Agreement? What community support is there for the forest plan promoted by the Beattie government? What has been the role of state and federal political leaders in ensuring a responsible approach to the RFA process in Queensland and other states?13082Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEYSJ4O'ConnorLPForestry and Conservation; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—I thank the member for Blair for his continuing interest—like that of other members, I might add, like the members for Longman and Fairfax and the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry himself—in the welfare of many forestry workers in his electorate. The fact is that at present there are still negotiations about a regional forest agreement going on between Queensland officials and Commonwealth officials. But it might be of interest to the House to know that simultaneously and unilaterally the Queensland government has introduced the Forestry Amendment Bill 1999 to implement all the conditions of the contract signed with certain stakeholders, which of course is referred to as the `stakeholders agreement', not the `regional forest agreement'.The Commonwealth has some very great concerns both on environmental and economic issues on these matters. Clause 213, which is being set in law, allows for the harvesting—in contravention of the present harvesting rules in Queensland—of all commercial species in their new production area down to 40 centimetres in diameter at the lower levels of the tree. That is an old-fashioned 16 inches in diameter. That is about the size of the tree that is going to be cut down. That is, of course, a progressive clear fell of an entire forest. They will be going back into that forest every year to measure every tree. As soon as they hit 16 inches in diameter they are going to cut them down. Three green groups signed up for that.But then, of course, we find the real threat to the smaller sawmillers of Queensland in clause 215, where the Queensland government is going to take the right of first refusal over every sawmill and every wood contract in Queensland. That means those sawmills are unsaleable to any other person. Nobody is going to go through the cost of making an offer for a property of that nature, knowing it could be gazumped by the Queensland government. Sixteen mayors met the other day in rural and regional Queensland. If anyone sees the minutes of their meeting, they will know they are not happy with this outcome.The questioner also asked me to make some reference to the activities of state and federal politicians in regard to the wider RFA process. Wasn't I given a wonderful lead-in today when the Leader of the Opposition decided to cry crocodile tears about the people of Manjimup? Manjimup is the central wood harvesting, wood industry, town of Western Australia where—through the Leader of the Opposition's constant campaign against the Western Australian RFA, in complicity with his colleague Dr Geoff Gallop—there has been a collapse of the small business community. He comes to this House crying crocodile tears about some little shop that he says is going down. I will bet you that they do not. I will tell you: if they do, they will not be closing down because of the GST; they will be closing down because Gallop and Beazley ran a campaign to take their jobs away from them. In fact, 200 jobs were lost overnight in Manjimup. Those people all shopped in Manjimup.Mr O'Keefe interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Burke!SJ4Mr TUCKEY—They bought from Retravision, and they bought from the jewellers, who have had a 50 per cent reduction in their business. Isn't it amazing that the response from the Leader of the Opposition to 200 jobs lost is laughing, and indications that anybody who complains in this place and defends—Opposition member interjecting—Boofhead!SJ4Mr TUCKEY—Yes, I am a boofhead. That's right. I am happy to be the boofhead if being a boofhead means you stand up in this place for jobs. I am happy about it. I will cop it. But we have got all of those who voted against the RFA legislation that creep into this place and got under the carpet without making a bump, that all go back to their electorates and say, `We're fighting for you, boys,' then they come in here and vote down a piece of legislation by amendment. The CFMEU says they are wrong. NAFI says they are wrong.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker—Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition knows that he will not be heard until recognised by the chair. After 12 months, I would have thought most members would know that recognition is very much accelerated when people are silent.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order which goes to relevance.JT4BAILEYMs Bailey—You have got no relevance when it comes to timber workers.Honourable members interjecting—Mrs Crosio interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Prospect and the member for McEwen are both warned. Now seems an appropriate time to recognise the Leader of the Opposition.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—I go to relevance, Mr Speaker. Aside from the fact that we passed the legislation in the Senate, the question referred to—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The minister has been entirely relevant to the question asked, and I invite him to continue.SJ4Mr TUCKEY—There are other issues that are relevant to the activities of federal and state members on the RFA—as I was questioned—and they include, of course, blocking tactics. While we are having a bit of humour, it is interesting that the Financial Review today ran a very insightful cartoon, in which the Leader of the Opposition is sitting up in the members enclosure with his bit of cake and his mate with a glass of champagne, who says, `I know batsmen generally get themselves out but you're still meant to be bowling.' In the timber industry he is Geoffrey Boycott.Mr O'Keefe interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Burke.1308413084Griffin, Alan, MPMr GRIFFINVU5BruceALP00—My question is again to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware that the skin disease eczema, characterised by red, inflamed skin and oozing and crusted sores, can if untreated lead to staph infection and hospitalisation? Why are many of the medical treatments for eczema subject to the GST when the government has exempted personal lubricants? Why have you shown the good policy sense to exempt personal lubricants but not the many creams essential to treat eczema and psoriasis?13084Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—There is a very simple answer: scheduled goods 3, 4 and 8 are exempt from the GST. Non-scheduled goods, such as those that can be bought in supermarkets, are subject to a GST. The issue with personal lubricants is that they come under the category of `public health good', which relates to sunscreens, condoms, lubricants and folate tablets. That came out of the expert advisory committee. The final point is that health loses $800 million of embedded wholesale sales tax in the GST.1308413084Wakelin, Barry, MPMr WAKELINHV5GreyLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment Services. Minister, how will the outcome of the second Job Network tender benefit job seekers across Australia, particularly in regional electorates like Grey? What is the government's response to criticisms of this outcome?13084Mr ABBOTTMr ABBOTTUNKNOWNUNKNOWNUNKNOWNUNKNOWN00—Job Network has been very good for regional Australia. Under the former Labor government there were just 350 Commonwealth Employment Service sites around the country; under Job Network 1, Job Network services were delivered from 1,400 sites, including 1,100 permanent sites. Under Job Network 2, which I announced last Friday, Job Network services will be delivered from 2,100 sites around the country, including from more than 1,700 permanent sites. In the employment region of country South Australia, which includes the electorates of Grey, Wakefield and Barker, total Job Network sites, including outreach sites, will increase from 45 to 72. In the region of greater Western Australia, which includes the electorate of Kalgoorlie, total Job Network sites will increase from 26 to 108. I am sure my friend the member for O'Connor will be pleased to know that, in that suffering town of Manjimup, Job Network sites go from one to three to deal with the ravages caused by the Beazley-Gallop forest policy. In central and northern Queensland, which includes the electorates of Leichhardt, Herbert, Dawson, Capricornia and Kennedy, Job Network sites will increase from 50 to 91. These increases are typical of widely increased Job Network coverage throughout regional Australia. In the Northern Territory, for instance, there used to be seven CES sites.Mr Snowdon interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for the Northern Territory!UNKNOWNMr ABBOTT—In Job Network 1 there were 14 sites, and in Job Network 2 there will be 25 permanent sites and four outreach sites. Because this does not satisfy the member for the Northern Territory, I should stress that under Labor, when the Leader of the Opposition was the Minister for Employment, when unemployment in the Northern Territory was 10 per cent—Mr Snowdon interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for the Northern Territory! I warn the member for the Northern Territory.UNKNOWNMr ABBOTT—Labor put seven CES sites into the Northern Territory. Under the coalition, with unemployment down to four per cent, there will be 29 Job Network sites in the Northern Territory. I take the member for the Northern Territory's point that one site, Nhulunbuy, has not been offered a new contract under Job Network 2. I assure the member for the Northern Territory that my department is about to go back to providers to obtain employment services in the Top End of the Northern Territory, including Nhulunbuy, on a fee-for-service basis.We are all local members. We have all have got constituencies to defend. I know that opposition MPs are expected to complain whether there is anything to justify that complaint or not, but I really think that the member for the Northern Territory should help the Labor Party to devise an employment policy of its own. Finding an ALP employment policy is about as hard as getting a signal from the NASA Mars Polar Lander. Finding any ALP policy is like finding Elvis Presley or the Loch Ness monster: you would like to see it, but you do not expect to find it. The regions of Australia are in very good hands under this government.1308513085Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Can the minister explain why he told this parliament in February this year that the allegations of an MRI scam were anonymous, unsubstantiated and the `product of profes sional rivalry'? Is it not the case that your department was alerted to this scam in October 1998 through a signed letter detailing the allegations of insider trading from Dr Burgess, a radiologist from Tweed Heads, and that there were several other letters that your department had received but had failed to investigate or refer to the Health Insurance Commission? Minister, did you know of these warnings? If not, why were you in the dark? Why did you tell parliament that the only allegations were anonymous and unsubstantiated, when you hadn't even looked at your own department's files?13085Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—I do not do a Lionel Murphy and go to the department in the dead of night and try to have a look at the files. What I told parliament in February was absolutely correct. I was referring to an allegation to the Health Insurance Commission in December that was anonymous and unsubstantiated and was thought to have been made on the basis of professional rivalry; and that was on the basis of the advice that I was given at the time.1308513085Gash, Joanna, MPMrs GASHAK6GilmoreLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Is the minister aware of recent comments in the media about Commonwealth funding for training? Would the minister please provide the House with the facts with regard to federal funding? What is the government's response to these comments?13085Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I thank the member for Gilmore for her question. Yes, I am aware of recent comments. In today's Daily Telegraph , the New South Wales education minister John Aquilina said that federal budget cuts had given his government no option but to close the Seaforth Institute of TAFE. I wish to inform the House that this is an utterly false claim. It is the New South Wales government which has cut funding to TAFE, and not the Commonwealth. I would like to put the facts before the House.In 1998 the Commonwealth, through the Australian National Training Authority, allocated $224.3 million in recurrent funding to New South Wales for vocational education and training. This sum has been indexed up, to maintain the Commonwealth's commitment to sustain funding in real terms for vocational education and training. In the year 2000, this figure will increase from $224.3 million to $239.4 million. If you contrast this with the New South Wales record, you find that the Labor Party once again is exhibiting its massive blind spot in relation to apprenticeships and training. The New South Wales Department of Education, Training and TAFE has admitted in the inquiry into the closure of Seaforth TAFE that the New South Wales government has effectively cut almost $35 million from TAFE in the year 1999-2000. So, while the Commonwealth is maintaining expenditure, the New South Wales government is slashing expenditure.This, one has to say, is typical of the blind spot that the Labor Party has in relation to vocational training and apprenticeships. While the federal Labor Party was in office, we saw the heart ripped out of the apprenticeship system, with the lowest number of apprenticeships and traineeships as a proportion of the work force for three decades.Opposition members interjecting—BT4Dr KEMP—And you still don't understand it. You still don't. You have no policy on this. The Leader of the Opposition has, as we know, no ticker to develop a policy on this. He has no policy for TAFE, no policy for education and no policy for apprenticeships. You are seeing our policy produce record opportunities, but the nowhere man over there has no policy and is seeking to undermine the opportunities of young Australians. That is what state Labor is doing. It is doing it in New South Wales. I told the House yesterday that it was doing it in Victoria, as well. It is up to this government—and this government is accepting the challenge—to make sure that the skills of this country are of world-class standard and that young people have real opportunities.1308613086Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Minister, you have now had months to check the details of who placed orders for MRI machines and the dates that those contracts were allegedly signed. Do you deny that at least four MRI machines were ordered before the budget by practices associated with members of the MRI Task Force? Do you deny that the chairman of the MRI Task Force, Dr Phillip Dubois, did in fact order four machines worth more than $10 million? Do you deny that these orders were placed by Dr Dubois in the 48 hours immediately prior to the budget on 12 May?13086Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—I do not have the detailed information of who has done what and I cannot say that what the honourable member says is correct or incorrect—although I would say that, if it is correct, Dr Dubois has been incredibly foolish and he will have to justify his situation. But he should at least be given the privilege of being presumed innocent until proven guilty, and nothing has been proven yet.1308613086Southcott, Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTTTK6BoothbyLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer advise the House how Australia is continuing to contribute to international financial stability?13086Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Boothby for his question. As we now seem to be emerging from the Asian financial and economic crisis, I think we can say that in this region one of the economies that performed the best was the Australian economy. We had high growth on low inflation. Our markets were stable. We have had high productivity and, along with the government's reform agenda, this will drive Australia into the next decade. I might observe that it is a long time since we have had a question on the economy from the opposition. We do not seem to get any questions on the economy from the opposition any more. It is probably hard to ask about the economy if you do not have an economic policy to base it on. Next week I will be attending the first G20 meeting which is being held in Berlin. The G20 is a new group which comprises developed and developing nations that are considered systemically important to the world international financial system.Australia has done a lot of work in international fora on the reform of the financial system. We have been part of the financial stability forum which comprises the G7 and four others. We are one of the few economies in this region which is a member of the G20. We have been active in the APEC forum. I presented a report to the Prime Minister in December of last year on the international financial system. We produced a transparency report on our institutions, which is now being used as a model around the world for economies that are seeking financial stability.There will be a key meeting in Berlin to discuss further reform of the international financial system. Australia will be pushing the work it has already done in that forum to try to get changes which will lead to enhanced stability, increased growth and better economic opportunity for the region. This is a great opportunity for Australia to be part of this important world forum. The fact that we are a member of it is an indication of our strong economic position in the region, a position which has enhanced the credibility of Australia in international forums, and we will be pushing our case next week at that meeting.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Questions to the Speaker130871308713087Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—Mr Speaker, on 18 October I asked you a question about the tabling of a report. In your response you acknowledged that it had multiple parts and that you would respond appropriately. As you have yet to respond to any part of the question, could I ask whether this is your response or, if not, whether you could give me some indication when you intend to respond.13087Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I will consult the Clerk about the detail of the question, given the number of questions to the Speaker, but I am happy to respond to the member for Chifley in as much detail as I have to my hand tomorrow.1308713087Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH2K6LongmanLP10—Mr Speaker, I ask whether you are aware of an editorial in the Caboolture and Near North Coast News of 16 November which states:$20,000 it will cost for each and every one of those pollies to have, for prosperity, their lovely countenances staring down at us from some gilded parliament hall somewhere. The cost for this outrageous extravagance is $1.8 million.This is referring to some belief that every federal member and senator was to have their portrait painted at a cost of $20,000 each and for them to be hung here. Can you confirm or deny that this is true or whether there is any basis of fact whatsoever in this editorial?13087Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I am aware of the article to which the member for Longman refers and, in the most restrained terms, it could only be described as fatuous nonsense. There is no intention to change any of the arrangements which have existed since 1911 whereby the Prime Minister chairs the Historic Memorials Committee—consisting of the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House, the Vice-President of the Executive Council, the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate—which commissions or purchases portraits of the holders of the following offices: the Sovereign, the Governor-General, the Prime Minister, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House and the Chief Justice of the High Court.The only other parliamentarians—the member for Cunningham has indicated he is very familiar with this—whose portraits have been commissioned by the committee have been notable parliamentary firsts such as the first indigenous Australian elected to the federal parliament and the first woman elected to House of Representatives and the Senate. There has never been any suggestion of any change to that policy.1308713087Danby, Michael, MPMr DANBYWF6Melbourne PortsALP00—Mr Speaker, under section 150 of the standing orders, would you ask the Minister for Defence to respond to my question No. 957 of 30 September? 13088Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I will follow that matter up with the Minister for Defence.Documents1308813088Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—Papers are tabled as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the papers will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings .Motion (by Mr Reith) proposed:That the House take note of the following papers:International Labour Conference—Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and its follow up—1998.International Labour Conference—Convention 181—Private Employment Agencies—1997.International Labour Conference—Recommendation 188—Private Employment Agencies—1997.International Labour Conference—Recommendation 189—General conditions to stimulate job creation in small and medium sized enterprises—1998.Submission Report on International Labour Conference instruments adopted in June 1998.Submission Report on International Labour Conference instruments adopted in June 1997.Mid-Term Review of Provider Number Legislation.Debate (on motion by Mr McMullan) adjourned.Ministerial Statements130881308815:29:0013088Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPTrade10—by leave—I wish to inform the House of the outcomes of my visit to Seattle last week for the third WTO ministerial conference, and the preceding `Friends of the Round' informal meeting of trade ministers on 25 and 26 October.The meeting in Lausanne was supposed to be one of the key preparatory meetings for the Seattle ministerial conference. Its purpose was to review the preparatory process ongoing in Geneva for the Seattle ministerial conference, which had been making little headway. The Lausanne meeting involved ministers from more than 20 countries, including the `Friends of the Round' grouping in which Australia has played a prominent role over the last couple of years, plus the United States, the European Union, Japan, Canada and key developing countries. The main sticking point was the scope of a new round—in other words the breadth of issues which were to be placed on the negotiating agenda.From Australia's perspective, I put the case strongly for a round which would be centred on the key market access areas of agriculture, services and industrial products. Research commissioned by my department estimates that the gains in terms of global welfare from a 50 per cent cut in support and protection in these areas alone would total some $US400 billion annually.I expressed Australia's concern that some developed countries, in particular the European Union and Japan, were too ambitious in areas such as investment and competition policy, and also that attempts by the United States to put new and controversial issues such as labour standards onto the agenda would not be acceptable to developing countries. I warned that such ambitions could derail the round launch and urged a more measured and realistic approach. I also made the point strongly that a successful launch would require further elaboration of the fundamental reform objective agreed in the Uruguay Round. I pointed to the near universal support for agriculture reform across the WTO membership, except for a small group of countries led by the EU and Japan.In the following weeks, I was in telephone contact with my EU, US and Cairns Group counterparts on agriculture where a number of sensitive issues were resolved. Regrettably, the same could not be said for other areas like labour standards and investment where, despite the efforts of Australia and others for a more reasoned position, attitudes from countries at both extremes remained rigid and unrealistic. As a result, ministers faced a hard job to find compromises at the meeting.At Seattle, I led a strong Australian delegation representing all industry sectors, interested agencies, including the opposition spokesman on trade. I welcome the strong commitment by the Australian business community to the Seattle meeting. Like the government, they appreciate the importance of opening new export markets for Australia's continued economic and employment growth.Many of the Australian industry organisations in Seattle ran parallel events to support and encourage progress with the agriculture talks. The National Farmers Federation arranged a meeting of farm leaders from Cairns Group countries, and the sugar, grains, dairy and processed food industries ran seminars and other activities in support of our agricultural reform objectives. I would like to pay tribute to the outstanding efforts made by the Australian contingent. There was a real sense of `Team Australia' throughout the meeting.Through their efforts, and those of Australia and the Cairns Group of agriculture countries, we made significant progress on agriculture. This was also assisted by close cooperation with the United States on this issue. But similar progress was not achieved in other areas. We had warned in Lausanne that overloading the agenda with new issues like investment, competition, labour standards and the environment would put the round at risk.Contrary to many media reports, the riots and protests were not a major problem for the conference. The real stumbling blocks were an unwieldy agenda; unrealistic ambitions in new areas, which were not tempered in the Geneva preparatory process or during the conference; an excessive emphasis on labour standards by the United States, despite determined resistance from developing countries; and strong demands from developing countries which sought to renegotiate Uruguay Round agreements as part of a new round launch. In the end, there was neither enough compromise nor time to achieve it.Notwithstanding this disappointing outcome, it would be wrong to conclude that no progress was made in Seattle. To the contrary, we made good progress in agriculture and services, and in some other areas. We are hopeful that these results can indeed be `frozen', as proposed by USTR Charlene Barshefsky and Director-General Mike Moore at the final committee meeting, and that the process can be restarted at an appropriate time. It needs to be remembered that agriculture and services negotiations are already mandated and will begin early next year. On agriculture, we have established clearly the almost unanimous expectations of the WTO membership to move toward the elimination of export subsidies, to avoid the protectionist banner of `multifunctionality', to achieve substantial and progressive reductions in domestic support, to pursue market access negotiations aimed at the broadest level of liberalisation and to deal with issues like environment and rural welfare in ways that do not distort production and trade. These elements will provide a very positive direction for next year's agriculture negotiations.The mandate for the services negotiations has not been controversial. We can expect to make progress on market access in sectors such as financial, telecommunications, professional services and electronic commerce. We will also continue to work on the full intellectual property agenda.Australia intends to continue to fight hard to progress the mandated negotiations, in close cooperation with the Cairns Group and with positively inclined services trading countries. We stand ready to incorporate these negotiations in a broader round as soon as possible and will work to that end. In the meantime, we are well prepared to start the mandated negotiations on agriculture and services in the new year.I would like to make clear that the events in Seattle have not resulted in any change in the government's support for a market access focused round that includes industrial products in addition to the mandated negotiations on agriculture and services. We will continue to argue for a new round while getting on with the agriculture and services negotiations.We will also continue to express our concerns at attempts to overload the WTO agenda with complicated and controversial issues. That does not mean we do not support sensible work programs in the WTO on issues such as trade and environment and trade and development. There are clearly overlaps with other policy domains in these areas which the WTO is already addressing. Despite the misinformation being peddled by the Labor Party, Australia went to Seattle supportive of an ongoing work program of the WTO Committee on Trade and Environment and the Committee on Trade and Development. This reflects our position that it is important to ensure efforts to free up trade are mutually supportive with environmental goals, as well as advancing the broad objective of sustainable development.There is misinformation on the trade and labour issue being put around by the Labor Party in recent days. It is a shame to see that Senator Cook, who I might say was a valuable and constructive member of the Australian delegation in Seattle, has had to toe the trade union line on his return to Australia.Senator Cook knows what the real situation was in Seattle. The United States was running with a highly provocative proposal to developing countries on trade and labour. He acknowledged the US `had one of the worst records of all countries in the world for following ILO conventions'. Australia's position, supported by the Labor Party until recent political expediency got in the way, has been that labour standards are better dealt with in other international forums such as the ILO.Australia was nevertheless amongst a group of countries trying to find a way of bridging the gap between the US and developing countries' positions given the importance of finding an acceptable solution to this issue for the final Seattle outcome. It appeared that consensus could have been reached, as part of a Seattle package, around the establishment of a freestanding `working forum' suggested by Thai Deputy Prime Minister, Dr Supachai, involving a range of international organisations including the WTO, ILO, UNCTAD and the World Bank. This would have met Australia's objective of not bringing the issue directly within the WTO.In addition to pushing for the negotiations on agriculture and services to begin early next year, there are other aspects of the WTO we will also pursue. We will press our dispute actions against the infamous US lamb safeguard tariff quotas and Korea's beef restrictions. We also plan to work, through the WTO dispute investigation and enforcement mechanism I announced in September, to identify and pursue any other areas where our trading interests are being damaged through non-observance of the WTO rules by others. We will also do all we can to see China and Taiwan accede to the WTO early next year, given the sizeable trade benefits in prospect for our exporters in that regard.The government adopts an integrated multilateral, regional and bilateral approach to trade policy. The WTO is a vital part of this strategy and the Seattle outcome has not changed that. But the WTO is only a part of our trade policy agenda. Regionally, we will be pressing to invigorate the APEC trade liberalisation and facilitation process when Australia hosts the APEC trade ministers meeting next June. The Seattle outcome means there is a strong case for APEC members to continue regional efforts to build support and momentum for a trade round.We will also be investigating, with our New Zealand and ASEAN colleagues, the potential for a free trade agreement linking CER with the ASEAN free trade agreement area. In this regard, I was pleased to announce earlier today that former Deputy Prime Minister and former Minister for Trade, Tim Fischer, will be the government's representative on the high level task force to pursue AFTA/CER links. As one of Australia's most successful trade ministers, Tim Fischer brings a wealth of experience in pursuing closer economic and trade relations with the ASEAN countries.The delay in a round launch will no doubt also stimulate attention to other possibilities for regional trade liberalisation and greater economic integration. There has been interest expressed in several bilateral and plurilateral combinations, including some which would link North and South America with CER and Asia. The government is open to concluding free trade agreements where they would give Australia substantial gains in market access which Australia could not get elsewhere in a similar time frame.Bilaterally, the Market Development Taskforce in my department will continue our efforts to open markets and promote exports in both traditional and emerging markets.Australia has an enormous interest in trade and in protecting and building the global trading system. The government will continue to put that message squarely to the Australian people. In this regard, I will shortly be releasing a new series of regional fact sheets which will highlight the importance of international trade to the prosperity of local communities. This link between our trade performance and our economic livelihood has to be better understood and the government must play its part in conveying this message.We have a huge stake in the global trading system. So in addition to building a stronger domestic support base to the government's trade work, we will continue to pursue our international trade policies with maximum energy at all levels—multilateral, regional and bilateral.15:41:0013091Brereton, Laurie, MPMr BRERETON5T4Kingsford-SmithALP00—by leave—As the House knows, Labor found the breakdown of the WTO talks in Seattle deeply disappointing. We know that as a result of that breakdown Australia will miss out on a number of benefits that we might otherwise have expected from further trade liberalisation. These include an overall welfare gain to Australia of some $7.5 billion per year. That is quite a contrast with the zero or perhaps negative economic benefits that the GST is about to deliver to the economy. We will miss out on greater market access for thousands of Australian exporters including our service exporters, our manufacturers and our farmers. We know that as a result we will miss out on higher wages in the Australian manufacturing sector—for example, exporting firms are paying 29 per cent more than non-exporting firms—and we will also miss out on cheap products for customers worldwide.Minister Vaile referred in his statement to the position that Labor adopted over the issue of labour and environment standards. For the record, let me recall what Senator Cook called for prior to Seattle. On labour standards he supported the establishment of a WTO working group on trade and labour to properly investigate how this issue might best be dealt with in the international arena. At the same time he expressed concern that the ICFTU's call for social cause would allow WTO member states to impose trade sanctions on states that did not meet core labour standards. Not only does such a proposal pose practical difficulties; it also faces implacable opposition from many WTO members, especially the ASEAN states.On the issue of labour rights, Senator Cook has also noted that the new ILO Director-General, Dr Somavia, has expressed enthusiasm for advancing core labour standards through other means than a WTO social cause. Labor of course believes that the ILO's effort deserves full Australian support and we should start to do so by restoring our permanent representative to the ILO—the position that was so spitefully axed by the minister for industrial relations in 1996.I must say I do detect more than a fair degree of hypocrisy in the government now calling for a big ILO effort. This is, after all, the government that in 1996 slashed our commitment to the ILO, removed our permanent representative at the ILO, closed our office in Geneva and resigned our position on the governing board of directors of the ILO—the key front bench of that organisation that we have always played a leadership role in. We slashed our delegation and for the next two years it was no longer led, as it had been in Labor's day, by a minister for industrial relations. So it is very late in the day for the government to be singing about the need for the ILO. It failed dismally to recognise the valued work of the ILO, not only in those areas I have described but in the many programs that the ILO pursued, particularly the ASILO programs, investigating labour standards throughout our own region. All of this money was slashed by this government; all of these programs were axed completely. Here we have the government saying today, `Oh, yes, the ILO is the way to go.' It is a pity you were not thinking about that when you put the cleaners through our commitment to the ILO four years ago.I turn my attention to the question of the environment, because there Senator Cook called on the Howard government to pursue issues which included the labelling of green products to ensure there was no contravention of any WTO agreements and to agree to carry out domestic environmental reviews on all new multilateral trade agreements to ensure that they are consistent with the principles of sustainable development. The House should be aware that the government ignored each of these suggestions.Labor is concerned by the minister's statement earlier this week that a new round of trade talks should wait until after the November 2000 US presidential elections and that, in the meantime, we should pursue regional trade negotiations. We would point out that world trade talks are absolutely vital. Labor has often called upon the government to take up proposals for regional free trade agreements, but we should not allow this to let the WTO talks stall. The longer they are kept waiting or, in the words of Minister Vaile, remain frozen, the more likely the tentative agreements on agriculture will unravel.A far more honest appraisal of the Seattle debacle than the minister's statement today is given by Paul Kelly—I think he is right on the money—when he writes in the Australian today:Australia is fooling itself to pretend that the negotiations can restart from the "frozen" Seattle text. One trade negotiator said: "This was nearly a very good outcome for Australia. We got very close to a substantial deal after years of effort. Now it's back to square one.'One would hope that the minister is right, but there is no point in gilding the lily when so much is at stake.In conclusion, I would like to welcome the government's decision to give priority to the creation of a new free trade area, comprising AFTA, the ASEAN free trade agreement area, and the CER, the closer economic relations groupings. As Senator Cook explained in the Senate on 19 October last, Labor has been calling on the government to give more attention to AFTA/CER since July 1997. The Keating government, for its part, proposed and commenced talks on this in Bangkok way back in April 1994. Under the Howard government it has long been on the backburner.The potential AFTA/CER arrangement has the potential to offer to Australian exporters very great benefits. However, the government has said today that its goal will be to merge AFTA and CER by 2010. I think it is fair to say that this sets the bar at ankle height, since APEC's Bogor declarations require Australia to eliminate all tariffs by 2010. All too often, the Howard government's approach to trade policy seems to involve playing the various pieces of the puzzle one at a time. It is about time they started joining up a few of them and grasping something of the big picture.Motion (by Mr Vaile) proposed:That the House take note of the paper.Debate (on motion by Mr McMullan) adjourned.Matters of Public Importance130921309210000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Mr Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for Brand proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:The adverse impact on the Australian community of the Howard Government's backward looking, unfair and deficient policies.I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—15:49:0013092Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—We understand from the papers today that the Prime Minister compared his era of government with that of Menzies and compared himself favourably with Prime Minister Menzies. We on this side of the House do not necessarily think that this is a pretty high benchmark to reach. Nevertheless, we would dispute it. I understand one of the things of Menzies that he wants to emulate is longevity of service, which would take him to 73 years of age. Here is what his own folk said about both his speech and about that possibility. On the speech, one apparently said to the media that it contained a degree of self-congratulation and triumphalism, and, on the proposition that Howard would last until Menzies' 16-year reign record had been defeated, that this `makes him feel rather seedy'. Well they might. If you had asked me four years ago, `How would you expect to characterise the attitude of Mr Howard four years on, should he have been Prime Minister for those four years?', I never thought I would have used the words `Howard' and `hubris' in the same sentence. That is not what we would have expected of him. He is a most unlikely vessel for arrogance. But that is in fact what we have had from this Prime Minister—nothing but arrogance since the last election. We have had the most incredible parade of hubris in this place at the expense of the ordinary Australian people. There has been a complete denial of the concerns that are there in the community in so many areas; an absolute unwillingness to listen to any argument about the impact of his positions on taxation, the impact of his positions on industrial relations, the effect he is having on health in the community, the effect he is having on the education of our citizens—every one of the indices on which will be built the building blocks of a successful Australia in the next century.Then we heard his speech. Those of us who were in the previous parliament will recollect the end of year report that occurred after his first year, the `climb every mountain' speech. He has sensibly shifted his end of year reports out of the chamber into the Press Club, where, of course, there is not an opportunity to reply to them. But I think those who heard his speech today would say these things about it: `It was so utterly indistinguishable from any of the speeches he has given in the course of the last 12 months,' `It was like watching the fifth rerun of Bellbird on the ABC—comfortable to listen to because it is so familiar; you have heard it all before,' `Relaxing, because it has no sense of novelty to it whatsoever' and `completely irrelevant to the modern world'.We have a completely backward looking Prime Minister in place, with no new ideas for this nation but presiding over a set of social statistics which ought to give concern to anyone who wants to see a competitive, effective, happy and united Australia in the next century. It is of course that unity ques tion that he likes to play on—`the things that unite us are so much more important than the things that divide us'. Unfortunately, that statement is not original to him. Of course, it was a statement by President FDR of the United States, so there is not even originality in that.But these are words from the person whose expertise I acknowledge above all others in Australian politics—I could not hold a candle to him on this; this is where he is world best practice—on wedge politics. This is a man who governs by division. This is a man who governs by isolating sections of the community and telling them that their demands, their concerns and their requirements are not viable, are not to be considered and would be against the interests of the majority of Australians if met. Wedge politics to the nth degree is the measure of this Prime Minister.Then there is the classic duckshoving of responsibility. Corporate Australia is to carry the burden of neglect in education policy, health policy, support for communities, support for the arts and support for every conceivable area of human endeavour that goes to making a happy, constructive and strong nation.Then he talks about creating strength. The simple fact of the matter is that he inherited the best wicket to bat on—he likes cricketing analogies—of any government in any nation in the OECD that came to power in the late 1990s. He inherited what was, despite his constant grizzling and complaints about it, the best budget position bar one. He inherited the best public debt position bar two in the OECD. He inherited a growing employment base. He inherited unemployment coming down at the rate of one per cent per annum when he came into office. That was the position that this man inherited. He inherited an education system with expanding resources given to it. He inherited a public investment in research and development in our business sector that was increasing at the rate of 10 per cent per annum real. He inherited a situation in which exports of manufactured goods and services were expanding at the rate of 10 per cent per annum.That was the situation. That was the Australia that he inherited. It was an Australia confident in its unity and in which everybody felt that they were making a contribution; a nation where Australians, when they went overseas, regarded themselves as exemplary in terms of the community relations that existed back here; a nation whose foreign minister, when he appeared at any venue in the region around us and held a press conference, the entire region would listen to, as though there were something of value to be imparted; and a nation where, when a Prime Minister stood on his scrapers in this place and looked at the future, he was looking at a future in which we were a cleverer people, a better informed people and a more creative people.You cannot say that now of this nation, and the reason for that is, directly, the position of the Prime Minister. With the cop-out that he now has in which he invites companies to take up the slack of the government in areas of social provision and educational provision, he is at the same time introducing a tax in this place which he does not understand—he has made that amply clear—and which will massively burden all those institutions to which he refers. It will massively burden the charities and massively disadvantage the companies that are supporting him.Contemplate this: we do not think there ought to be a GST on anything. We do not think there should be a GST on financial services; obviously, logically, that follows. And a GST is not to be applied to financial services. But the outfits which the Prime Minister happens to be addressing, in relation to getting the charitable institutions to take over his set of responsibilities as the person who is responsible for governing this nation, are of course the banks and financial institutions in this country. Every one of those banks and financial institutions which now provides sponsorship for the arts, for sports and for the whole plethora of community activities that he talks about, will pay the GST on that sponsorship.You go to the charitable organisations. The charitable organisations consist of good-hearted amateurs—they must be; there is no other way for them to operate. He is turning every one of the local agencies of these bodies into a collection agency—and they cannot do it. That is the simple fact of the matter. The reason why St Vincent de Paul, probably the biggest of all the charitable operations in Australia, is so bitterly opposed to this government is that they have come to the rock-ribbed, ironclad decision—based on their more serious understanding of the impact of the administration of the goods and services tax than the Prime Minister has been able to personally display this week, even though he is responsible for it—that they cannot do it. They have come to the complete understanding that they cannot do it. They have come to the complete understanding that their local organisations cannot implement this tax.It is not a question of, `With a bit of help, they might be able to.' It is simply beyond their physical resources to provide that sort of expertise in their plethora of operations around this country, many of which come under the rubric of that commercially competitive arrangement, as now defined by the ATO and by the government's legislation. It is simply not possible for the 65- or 70-year-old, good-hearted people who before they came into charitable work were probably waterside workers, firemen, teachers and nurses—these ordinary, decent Australians that make up the heart of Australian volunteers—to do it, and they will never be able to. It is not possible to put them in that situation. Like the Manjimup Centre that I referred to in question time, they will simply give it away. That is the situation in which this nation now finds itself. Far from social responsibility exercised by the large companies in this country making up for that, they themselves will have major inhibitions placed on their charitable contributions by the decisions of this government with regard to its goods and services tax.We have a Prime Minister who takes as his benchmark Sir Robert Menzies. There was only one time when Sir Robert had to make hard yards, and they replaced him with Curtin in the nick of time. Sir Robert Menzies was one of the luxuries of the 1950s, one of the luxuries of a different and more peaceful era. But, even with all that said, I would not for one instant regard this Prime Minister as anywhere near Bob Menzies' class. He seeks the accoutrements of Bob Menzies in his backward looking position. He has Sir Robert's old desk. This I cannot believe: it actually had to be lifted for the Prime Minister to sit behind it. He has the chesterfield sofa, he has the chairs and he has the antique furniture at Kirribilli.He has the surroundings of backward vision but, even worse than the surroundings of backward vision, he has the actuality of it. The Prime Minister made his statement about where his government is going. We know only these things: it will implement the GST, it will enforce it ruthlessly and it will pursue, no matter what the impediments, its industrial relations agenda—end of story. Anything else is a matter for the business community and a matter for the spirit of voluntarism, now massively handicapped in this community. Yet all on this side know—and so will the government know—that the key to Australia in the next century and the key to building a secure community are the following things. We must make every Australian believe, because it reflects reality, they are all benefiting from our progress and from any strength in the Australian economy. We had four years of good growth under the Labor government prior to this government assuming office, and we have finally seen the government get back to the Labor levels of growth. That is eight years of growth, and yet a majority of Australians ask this question of themselves: if the economy is so good, why are my family and I not benefiting? It is not just Labor Party polling that puts this out; it is a sentiment that comes back to us repeatedly when we are out on the doorstep talking to Australians.That reflects a reality. The studies released earlier this week from the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute and others demonstrate that probably about 20 per cent to 30 per cent of Australians are benefiting from prosperity; the other 70 per cent are no better off or worse off. That is the situation in Australia today. When we come to the indices of success—which are all bound up in educa tion, research and development statistics—we find, as a direct responsibility of this government, Australia going backwards. The universities, which this government constantly mocks at question time, provide the heart of new ideas, of research and development, and of the high skilled section of the population.This government has savaged them to the point of collapse, to the point where our pre-eminent vice-chancellor, Professor Niland, says that the level of distress in Australian universities is without precedent in his 35 years of experience. This is attested to in the government's own submission. They have abolished merit based equity scholarships. They have abolished funding for growth in TAFE. They do not understand, in their defence and in the deceitful statistics that are produced in this place, that they inherited a Commonwealth commitment to five per cent real growth in TAFE. They inherited that Commonwealth commitment and abolished it. That is why in New South Wales now they are struggling to keep those open.Then you go to the government's effort in relation to research and development, the new ideas for the new century. Commonwealth spending has gone down from 0.54 per cent of GDP when they took office to 0.43 per cent. We are the only nation in the Western world going backwards in public investment in new ideas and public investment in training. These are the policies on which the next election will be fought—the security of the Australian people and the opportunity of the Australian people to build a knowledge nation in which they have a future with equality of opportunity and an opportunity to participate in a worthwhile nation. This backward looking Prime Minister, this Prime Minister comfortable with himself but not with the Australian people once he moves outside his chesterfields, is not the person who will deliver it. (Time expired)16:04:0013095McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURANXH4GippslandNPArts and the Centenary of Federation10—The House has just been treated to a performance reminiscent of a Louisiana senator in that it was generalised and short on detail. It was a very American performance in that it was generalised, it was unfocused and there were no specifics. It had just empty rhetoric and calls to a false patriotism of the kind that they use as stump speeches throughout the United States, particularly in the south. There is no doubt at all that the opposition backbench would have been extremely disappointed in that contribution from the Leader of the Opposition.At the end of 12 months of parliamentary sittings, if that is the best case the Leader of the Opposition can make against the government, the backbenchers should genuinely be fearful for their political futures. We do not have a tradition in this country of leaders of the opposition who trade in fearmongering and empty accusations without specifics against governments, but that is what we have just witnessed from the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition himself played wedge politics in personal vilification of the Prime Minister in a very unbecoming way. He accused the Prime Minister—amongst his personal insults, that is—of wedge politics. That just will not wash with the Australian people.The Prime Minister is known for plain and direct speaking and, therefore, he is not going to please all the people all the time. Unlike the Leader of the Opposition, who tries to be all things to all people and ends up looking hollow and sounding shallow, the Prime Minister actually speaks his mind and answers questions when they are asked of him inside and outside this place. He is known by the Australian people as an open and decent individual. So the Leader of the Opposition can make charges of wedge politics with all the connotations of that, but it simply will not wash, for the Prime Minister is regarded as something different and apart from the ordinary muck-raking politician of the kind represented by the Leader of the Opposition.The Leader of the Opposition has two major problems in bringing a debate of this kind to the parliament. The first problem is the inheritance of a government in which he was such a senior member for its entire 13 years—indeed, he was Deputy Prime Minister for several years—and the second problem is a complete and utter absence of any alternative policies. For anybody who endured the contribution over the last 15 minutes from the Leader of the Opposition, there was proof positive once again that he is a nowhere man going down an uncharted road—as he himself describes it. The fact is: where is his employment policy? Where is his tax policy? Where is his education policy? These were the three major policy areas that the Leader of the Opposition identified today: tax, employment and education. So where are his alternatives? We do not expect chapter and verse just yet—they have been there only three years—but can we instead have at least a summary position of what the Labor Party would do in office? Look, I will settle for a few pages. We do not want a mountain of pages. We might have got a glimpse of a policy on tax, for the Leader of the Opposition said:. . . we do not believe that a GST tax should be applied on anything.Is the policy to now reverse the GST, to abolish it? That is what it sounds like.UU5HORNEMr Horne—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order on relevance. The matter proposed here is the adverse impact on the Australian community of the Howard government.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! The honourable member for Paterson will resume his seat. I am totally aware of what the matter of public importance says, I know what was said by the proponent of it and I am listening very carefully. There is no point of order.XH4McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURAN—Is a tax policy beginning to emerge? We sort of got a hint of it yesterday when, across the table, the Leader of the Opposition said—not officially, but it was picked up and is hopefully included in Hansard —`We will roll back the GST.' Righto, tell the media and, through them, the people of Australia how you are going to roll it back. At one stage he said, `We will roll it back on health.' But the Treasurer said, `There is no GST on health,' so 20 seconds later the Leader of the Opposition said, `All right, it will not be on health.' The point is that we had a policy on GST and health for 20 seconds or so. It seemed yesterday that they were going to roll it back, but today they are opposed to a GST on anything.To what extent will the GST be rolled back before the next election? You are going to have to answer that, particularly when the GST is operating successfully in the 12 or more months beforehand. Conversely, it means that the Labor Party is committed to the existing tax system—the wholesale sales tax system. How can you be committed to that if you represent working men and women, families, exporters and primary producers? How could you possibly support the wholesale sales tax system, which costs exporters $4.5 billion? How could you support fuel excise at 43c a litre, as under the existing system? If you join with Botswana, Swaziland and New Caledonia in supporting a wholesale sales tax, you will be standing alone with them.I would love to see an education policy from the opposition. The member for Werriwa, who was shadow minister for education leading up to the last election, had his election policy butchered for sheer political purposes—as he has written about—by the Leader of the Opposition's office. So they do not have an education policy. Their record in government was to basically abolish apprenticeships. It is under this government that apprenticeships have risen to record levels and numeracy and literacy are being turned around—a long and hard task though that may be.Opposition members interjecting—XH4McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURAN—The opposition has no policy. You must be ashamed of yourselves, I say to the interjecting members of the opposition. How can you credibly stand before your electorates and this parliament and criticise a government that every day is taking initiatives and working on these difficult issues? How can you in good conscience convince your electors—or try to—that you represent a credible alternative choice for government? You cannot. You cannot hold up a piece of paper and point to any policy development. You have been there four years. I do not wish to say that you are lazy—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Since you are addressing the chair, I certainly hope that you do not do that.XH4McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURAN—I do not wish to say that members of the opposition are lazy, but they definitely are if they have been working on policy and deliberately withholding it—they are political opportunists. One is not much better than the other because the end result is that the Australian public do not have alternative policies to consider against the activity of the government. Of course the killer point the Leader of the Opposition made was that the government inherited the most sound budget position in the world, bar one. Inherited a sound budget! We inherited a $10.5 billion deficit from day one which he, as the then Minister for Finance, is as responsible for as the former Prime Minister and Treasurer.We had to turn around a more than $10 billion deficit by Labor. You do not have credibility in the eyes of the Australian people. Worse still, you opposed us returning that budget to surplus. All the hard work, the difficult decisions and the political pain that we endured so as to have a balanced budget leading to reduced interest rates, locked-in low inflation and better job opportunities, you opposed. You opposed us in the Senate on each and every one of those things. Interestingly, we introduced a new framework for the conduct of monetary policy to recognise the Reserve Bank's independent role and endorsed its inflation objective, and who opposed it? The Labor Party opposed it. So 13 years of neglect and mismanagement was followed, in the first term of the Howard-Fischer government, by three years of obstructionism. Now we see the same policy vacuum, the same opportunism and the same obstructionism. Quite frankly, you have opposed debt reduction and anything that we have ever tried to do. Nonetheless, the government is getting on with the job. We have created 574,300 jobs since we came to office in March 1996 and 51 per cent of these positions have been full time. The lower paid are better off, but do not take our word for this.UU5HORNEMr Horne—In what way?XH4McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURAN—`In what way?' the member asks. Why don't you visit the ACTU web site? The ACTU recognises what we have done in regard to increasing real wages. On its document on the web site, it states:Since 1996 the living wage has achieved an increase after inflation of 9.1 per cent for the lowest paid workers—a record admired by our counterparts overseas.How are you going to answer the ACTU's acclamation of the government's employment and economic policies? They are admired by our counterparts overseas. That is from the ACTU. When Labor and the ACTU ran the country—because it was never one without the other; Bill Kelty used to boast that he had a seat at the cabinet table, he sure did, and so did his presidents the now members for Hotham and Batman—real wages fell by approximately eight per cent.The Leader of the Opposition in his contribution again tried to put a gloss or the best spin on his period in office when he said that unemployment was falling when we came to government. You have to remember that, when he was the minister for employment in 1992, unemployment reached 11.2 per cent.834LAWLERMr Lawler—It reached what?XH4McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURAN—It reached 11.2 per cent. It is extraordinary that, in the total absence of any possible alternative, the Leader of the Opposition found time, in 15 minutes of what should have been valuable time, to criticise the government. I cannot even say `in the absence of any constructive alternatives' because there are none whatever. We cannot even make a judgment as to the worthiness of the opposition's policy in all these areas and aspects of government administration.It is a gross insult to the Australian people to think that you can duck and weave and bluff and hide and evade until the next election. You will not get away with it. As we all know, the political landscape in Australia in many ways in marginal seats has permanently changed. One aspect that has changed is that the Australian people demand better explanation, and documentation even, of policies from both government and opposition. So you are deluding yourselves if you think you can spend the next two years hiding under the carpet from the glare of public demand for policy innovation, policy development.This government has brought incentive and reward to individuals, families, working men and women, small business and primary producers. Look at what we have done with the tax system. By way of personal income tax, from 1 July next year, 80 per cent of Australians will pay only 30 cents in the dollar. Look at small business and you will see how from that same date we will bring down corporate tax from 36 cents in the dollar to 30 cents in the dollar. We have halved capital gains tax. We have cut red tape. We want people who work hard or who invest and risk their savings and those of their families to be rewarded. We actually want people to profit.`Profit' is an ugly word to the Labor Party. In Labor's 13 years that word was banned from the Australian lexicon. It was evil for business to make profit. It was evil for individuals to retain their hard-earned wages. But not under us. Under us, people, individuals, families and businesses will be rewarded commensurate with their efforts.At the same time, we have retained and built upon and expanded the social security net. We do not believe that it is a free-for-all out there. Government has responsibility to the disadvantaged and disabled across the board. Whether it be youth homelessness or youth suicide and the like, this government has brought into play a whole range of new policies to adapt to specific social and community concerns. For the pensioners, we have legislated that they receive 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. That is something the Labor Party promised but never did in its 13 years, just like the tax cuts that it passed through the parliament in 1992 but abolished on return to government in 1993. It cheated Australians out of legislated tax cuts, despite our efforts to oppose it in the parliament. With higher education, in schools, we have record numbers of undergraduate places.We in the government do not pretend that solutions are easy. It is a complex society. We live in very changed economic circumstances. There is more of a global economic trading environment. We want to ensure that prosperity is shared amongst all Australians. But we are going to work at it. Day in, day out we are going to tell Australians how we are doing it and why. We are going to seek their advice and involve them in all of our decisions. In contrast, the Labor Party sits mute thinking that it can escape the retribution of the Australian people for its policy negligence, for the total abdication of its responsibility as a political party. (Time expired)16:19:0013099Wilkie, Kim, MPMr WILKIE84GSwanALP00—The Prime Minister seems excited about the past performance of the government. But what has he got to celebrate? This is a government that has gone back to the future. Let us take education. The year 1966 might well be remembered as the golden age for the Liberals, but it was the high point of the most destructive period in our history of the notion of a skilled productive nation. Australia's best and brightest were virtually being exiled overseas by the strangling of educational opportunity in this country. This Prime Minister wants to take us back to those fallow wasted years when education was a privilege for the wealthy few and opportunities for the many were destroyed for an entire generation.This government has no commitment to our youth whatsoever. We have heard the minister for education dribbling on about the wonderful programs this government has. But this is a government with no commitment to the future of our young people. As everybody recognises—or at least on this side we do—the future for Australia is in having a welleducated and smart population. We are currently faced with the situation where we may have to bring in talent from overseas to cater for the vacuum created by this government's policies. Shame on the government for encouraging that sort of situation to ever occur!We have heard a lot about the GST and the wonderful benefits that will face the country. I just want to touch on a few of those supposed myths—the `demyths'. One is the GST and food and how the GST will not apply to food and how wonderful that will be. Food is supposedly GST free, but let us have a look at some of the processes that get food to market. Currently, primary producers do not pay wholesale sales tax on most of the inputs that they have in their business. For example, if you are talking about irrigation, fertiliser, farm machinery, spare parts, agricultural consultants and a whole raft of activities, these are all tax exempt. If a primary producer wanders into Elders, Wesfarmers or any of the other providers, all they have to do to have sales tax exemption is to sign a sales tax exemption form and they do not pay a cent.Primary producers will be faced with having to pay the GST, recording the amount that they have paid and every quarter having to claim it all back. Imagine the increased administration costs that this will put on to Australian farmers. If I were a farmer, I would be totally opposed to any situation where I have to pay a tax, where I currently do not have to pay one, collect it all and then try to claim it back later on, because I would know that it is going to dramatically increase my costs.We then go to the manufacturing process. Let us say that we have milk or wheat and it goes down to the manufacturing section. These people also have expensive machinery to operate a manufacturing process which can help get that product to market. Currently, if they undertake repairs, if they obtain consulting services and if they are paying electricity, et cetera, in most cases they do not pay the wholesale sales tax. For example, if you ring up a company and order parts, you have a sales tax exemption number; therefore, you do not actually pay that wholesale sales tax. Under these arrangements with the GST, again the companies will have to pay the GST, collect anything they get in and then claim it back later, thus dramatically increasing the costs for manufacturing. I believe that this is totally unacceptable and that most manufacturers would feel the same way.This system will create problems with cash flow with the need for increases in cash at hand, cheque accounts and bank balances. There will also be the potential to incur short-term debt due to this impost as well as increasing administrative time and budgeting. Amid these massive administrative costs the government advises that the price will not rise. Amid these costs the government says, `Don't worry, nothing is going to go up.' I am not so sure about this; I think they might be down at the bottom of the garden playing with the fairies.UNKNOWNOpposition memberOpposition member—And the Democrats.84GWilkie, Kim, MPMr WILKIE—Yes. Let us also look at the GST and its impost on small business. This afternoon I was speaking to a small business contractor who owns an electrical contracting business. Recently his wife, who is also their bookkeeper and works full time, attended a GST seminar. She walked away shaking her head because of the uncertainty the participants were left with. Many felt they had wasted an entire day. In my constituent's situation, she had given up an entire day's wages to attend this seminar.The participants were told they had to get their act into gear or face strong penalties. But where is the onus on the government to provide accurate and reliable information in order that small business can comply? They were told, for example, that some of the things they might need to know and understand were not actually going to be available until 2003 because the government was trying to slowly wade through some of these problems. This contractor said to me, `Dramatically increased compliance costs with quarterly returns will generate three times the paperwork with no ongoing compensation.' He said that this was totally unacceptable.They were told that if they purchased computers and software before 1 January next year—four weeks away—they could get a 100 per cent rebate; otherwise they could claim only depreciation, as is currently the case. Many small businesses operate on very tight budgets: they do not have money lying around in bank accounts that they can access to buy expensive equipment and software. This is a difficult impost that should never have been placed on small business. If the government is going to give small business a 100 per cent rebate, then it should extend it—don't just give them four weeks to go out and buy equipment and software. This small business feels let down and cheated by the government. I believe this example is typical of the attitude that small business has regarding the GST.Furthermore, we have heard about how provisional tax will be removed. Provisional tax will be abolished. However, it will be replaced with a pay-as-you-go system and under this system businesses will need to remit tax every quarter. This takes the business tax system closer to the pay-as-you-earn system for individuals who have tax taken out of each pay packet. In many cases, business tax payers will actually be paying their tax earlier under the new system than they would have under the provisional tax arrangements.I would now like to look at the impact of the GST on the community. Many in our community are not wealthy. We have been criticised just recently for getting a bit for ourselves. National figures suggest that 30 per cent of incomes are less than $300 a week. The median income is $29,000. In my electorate of Swan, for example, 25,000 people are on marginal incomes or income support. Nationally, over one million people are on rental assistance, 900,000 are on family payments, 400,000 are on single parent payments, 660,000 are on Newstart, 580,000 on disability support and 390,000 receive the youth allowance.Imagine the impost the GST will have on this section of the community—to me it is totally unacceptable. Public transport will go up: fees in all states for bus fares, train fares, taxis, et cetera will go up. Private transport will go up through increased registration fees as well as the increased cost of tyres, servicing of vehicles and even insurance.84HZAHRAMr Zahra—It sounds like a disaster.84GWilkie, Kim, MPMr WILKIE—It certainly is a disaster for this group of people. We will also have GST applying to child-care centres. Child-care centres do not have to charge a GST on their fees. However, their costs will go up unless they claim back the GST that they pay on their inputs such as cleaning, electricity, gardening, repairs, books, toys, kitchenware and so on. The GST will even apply to playground equipment in child-care centres.83YHOAREMs Hoare—Shame! We are taxing our children.84GWilkie, Kim, MPMr WILKIE—We are taxing our children, and I think it is totally wrong. This end of year excitement from the Prime Minister has become something of a tradition—and this was such an unlikely little vessel to fill itself with such arrogance. Could his trip to England next year see him awarded one honour which eluded Menzies: the Order of the Garter. This is after all the man who saved the monarchy in Australia. We find the comparison with 1966 apposite in this one sense: in 1966 Menzies finally worked out he had to go, and the Prime Minister should do the same. (Time expired)16:29:0013101Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUSCU4HindmarshLP10—It is Christmas time, and the opposition have given us a Christmas present in today's MPI. They have shown that, contrary to rumour, they actually have a sense of humour. If we have a look at what this MPI actually says, it refers to—and I thought when I saw this I had it wrong—`the government's backward looking policies'. But aren't I right; isn't it the opposition, along with Botswana and Swaziland, that wants to keep a 1930s tax system? But is this not backward? Perhaps the opposition could explain why they want to keep a tax system that every other country has got rid of, to keep us back in the 1930s. If we had to describe anybody as backward looking, there is no doubt that it is this sad and pathetic Labor opposition.But perhaps they meant the MPI to be taken seriously. Perhaps we should give them the benefit of the doubt and have a look at what possible meaning they could put into it. It says `the adverse impact on the Australian community' of the Howard government's policies. Let us just have a look. How would we measure the impact on the Australian community? I thought: what do we actually look at? First of all, I think we would look at employment levels. What are the employment levels in the community? Unemployment is at 7.1 per cent. I would say that that is still too high, but it is lower than 8.5 per cent, which it was in March 1996 when we came to government. It has consistently since then showed a trend down. So there are more people in jobs now than ever before.What else would we look at? We would look at unemployment. It has come down. But maybe people are not getting the wages they used to get. Perhaps we have cut the wages. Let us have a look at the wages.83KROXONMs Roxon—We're trying to.CU4Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUS—The member opposite—who unfortunately has made such an impression in this place I cannot tell what seat she is from—said, `We're trying to'. Let us have a look at those real wages. Under the coalition real wages have actually risen 8.7 per cent in four years.83KROXONMs Roxon—What was in your IR policy?CU4Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUS—That is for the lowest paid on the basic award wages. Perhaps the member should get some facts before she slings off. It has risen 8.7 per cent. Perhaps the Deputy Speaker could inform me of the member's seat. The Deputy Speaker unfortunately cannot remember the member's seat.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The honourable member for Hindmarsh will not include the chair in the debate.CU4Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUS—Unfortunately, nobody can tell me the name of the member's seat; she has made such impression in this place. So I say to the member across the room that wages have risen 8.7 per cent under this coalition. What happened in the last four years of Labor? In the last four years of Labor real wages declined by five per cent. The opposition makes a fuss, but when it comes to the facts it is left there like the emperor, with absolutely no clothes.We have had a look at unemployment. We have had a look at wages. What about economic growth? It was 13.6 per cent in the last three years. What about inflation? It was 2.6 per cent in the last three years, compared with 9.5 per cent under Labor. Perhaps I am missing something. Maybe out there in the community the consumer is saying, `Despite all of this, we are worried. We don't really think we're better off.'What did the consumers say? Let us have a look at the Westpac Melbourne Institute consumer sentiment index. It said that the consumer sentiment index rose 1.8 per cent to 114.9 in seasonally adjusted terms in November and is almost nine per cent higher than at the same time last year, that there was an improvement in current family finances and that positive expectations of economic conditions were the major contributors to the rise. Importantly, expectations of economic conditions are more than 30 per cent higher than at the same time last year.So what is happening here? Unemployment is down. Wages are up. Economic growth is up. Inflation is down. Consumer sentiment is up. So where is the MPI? Perhaps we had better go back to the speech by the Leader of the Opposition to look for some clues about what exactly were the points he was making. First of all, he accused the Prime Minister of making a boring speech. That would be in the ears of the listener. Perhaps some others would describe it as other than boring. Let us face it: it is hardly what I would call an absolutely devastating criticism.The Leader of the Opposition accused the Howard government of undertaking wedge politics, government by division. Where were the examples? As the previous speaker on this side—the member for Gippsland—said, it was all rhetoric. There was not one example offered. The Leader of the Opposition then said Labor's final budget was the best budget. This was the budget that they went to the 1996 election with, saying that the budget was in surplus. It turned to be a $10 billion deficit. Is that his idea of the best budget?What was the next criticism? It was that the Prime Minister was backward looking because he liked antique furniture. I suspect that would make a lot of us backward looking if we like antique furniture. But I also wonder what it says about the previous Prime Minister of this country, who more than liked antique furniture. We had it thrust at us all of the time—and, I must say, with particularly bad taste as well.Finally, the opposition leader said that there has to be a feeling in the community that Australians are benefiting. I do not think I can go further than to refer to the consumer index, which indicates that everyone believes they are benefiting. What were the policies that came out of the speech? I did not hear of a policy. Did anybody else? But we did hear one today in question time. It was—I made a note of this—no GST on personal non-prescription lubricants. It is not a big policy but it is at least a policy. I congratulate the opposition on coming up with that particular policy. Maybe it is putting its toes into the water to get just a little feel of what it is like to have a policy.Let us quickly look at what the Howard government has achieved in its four years because those achievements are quite stunning. I referred earlier to the real wages increase. That was brought about by the workplace agreements. Because of the workplace agreements that this government brought in, real wages have risen 8.7 per cent. Remember the Labor Party's policy, the accord—the accord that drove wages down by five per cent in their last four years? What was that meant to do? It was meant to keep inflation low, and they did not even achieve that. We have protected youth wages. We have repealed the Keating government's 1993 legislation that would have put young people on the scrap heap. I pay tribute to Martin Ferguson, who realised that that was a politically stupid policy and talked the rest of the Labor Party into abandoning their stand.This government has revamped the whole tax system for both individuals and businesses. Individuals will pay less tax; 80 per cent of people will have a tax rate of 30 per cent or less. There will be lower tax rates for 90 per cent of taxpayers. There will be $12 billion each and every year in tax cuts. Under the GST no longer will Australian exports be disadvantaged. It is a simple, indirect tax system that is internationally competitive and industries will no longer be penalised. I have here pages outlining what we have done for families, for the aged and for those with disabilities. I have got pages on economic management.Finally, I congratulate this Prime Minister for the courage he had in pulling 640,000 automatic and semiautomatic weapons out of the Australian community, changing the culture on guns. I also congratulate him for changing our policy on East Timor—the policy we had for decades—so that Australians can now hold their heads up high and say, `We did the right thing by East Timor.' (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The discussion has concluded.Bills13103r96213103Bill returned from Main Committee with an amendment; certified copy of bill and schedule of amendment presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Main Committee's amendment—(1) Schedule 1, items 1 and 2, page 3 (lines 5 to 9), omit the items, substitute:1 Subsection 55A(2)Repeal the subsection, substitute:(2) It is also declared to be the intention of the Parliament that, in addition to the powers, functions and duties (the Commonwealth powers, functions and duties ) conferred or imposed on the Authority or the Judges of the Federal Court by this or any other Act: (a) the Authority, or those Judges, may, except as otherwise declared by the regulations, have conferred or imposed on it or them, by a law of a State, powers, functions and duties (the State powers, functions and duties ) of the same kinds as the Commonwealth powers, functions and duties; and (b) the State powers, functions and duties may relate to the investigation of any relevant criminal activity, whether or not the Commonwealth powers, functions and duties relate to the investigation of that activity.Amendment agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.13103Bill (on motion by Ms Worth)—by leave—read a third time.Bills13103r94213103Debate resumed.16:41:0013103Thompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON84CBlairLP10—Prior to question time I was illustrating an example of one of the more dramatic sorts of cases that certainly could require us to activate the provisions of the Farm Family Restart Scheme. That particular case was a very dramatic one, but there are a lot of areas in which pressures are put on farmers. I would like to give a few illustrations of that based on my own experience in the electorate of Blair.In that area we have, as I said, a range of agricultural activities. Take dry land peanut farming, for example, which has been the traditional way of life for many around Kingaroy. That industry is certainly under pressure because of aflatoxin and the growing competitiveness of irrigated farms which are not so subject to aflatoxin as a contaminate. In the Brisbane Valley and around Ipswich and Laidley subdivision of land for residences means many are trying to persist with farming but carry increased burdens, including rates, while they lose access to rural services that have supported their profitability in the past.In the Lockyer we have falling water levels in the underground aquifer, and lack of access to water has made many farming areas in that very fertile valley not viable. Some who paid to join irrigation schemes are now burdened with the cost of those schemes and a lack of return because the water supply forecasts have not been met. There are other pressures—for example, the state government scheme for a forest agreement which may restrict access by cattle to areas of state forest. Also there are the recently proposed state tree clearing guidelines which will certainly restrict a farmer's right to undertake clearing and so develop his or her property to increase the area under production so as to maintain their viability over time.All these various pressures, and I have not even mentioned drought yet! In my area, there have been years of drought. These are just a few of the pressures that are being felt by the farms in my area. Few family farms would regard themselves as absolutely secure in this day and age. An increasing number—in fact most, I would venture—have breadwinners who are working off-farm to support their income. This is a very complex and punitive environment in which to conduct business.Farmers are proud people. They see themselves as pioneers. They see themselves as being tough and independent. They want to see their families prosper and they believe they are making a solid contribution to the wealth of the nation by building up the productive worth of their holdings. So they are not people who readily admit failure. They know what tough times are about, so they tend to want to soldier on, no matter how tough the going gets, and they believe that they can fight their way through whatever problems confront them. The FFRS is an important scheme, but farmers are not out there eagerly trying to line up for it. They do not seek out these reestablishment grants willingly. Sadly, the increasing pressures—some of which I have named—conspire against farmers, and so the number dragged unwillingly to the scheme is gradually increasing.I want to make a bit of a prediction about this bill. It is a worthy bill, but it will not be the last time we will see this subject brought before the House. The deadline for these grants will, in my view, have to be extended again. The trend for farmers needing to get out, leave the land and make a new start in employment elsewhere is increasing markedly. Already there are cases of the most abject poverty among farmers—and I illustrated a case earlier—who are trying to hang on to their pride, and their investment, for too long. The number of human beings driven off the land by these changes is increasing and, unless we are prepared to further extend the grants scheme or replace it with an alternative, we will have a growing disaster on our hands. I would like to go back to the particular case that I was discussing earlier, because I think it shows just how far things can go. This is a family, as I said, living with no electricity and no running water, washing in the river and getting their food by living out of the local creek by catching crayfish or whatever to support seven kids. That is an incredible situation and one where, I suspect, the unwillingness of the family to leave the land really is driving then to incredible desperation.I am the father of a four-year-old, among other children, and to think that in this case a child much not much older than that, a five- or six-year-old, a grade 1 student, should be sent unaccompanied into town to live at a hostel week in, week out, is incredible to me. In this day and age it seems that this is a sector where poverty at this level occurs and where we are going to have to do something about it. If these were other people and if this were happening in the suburb of a town, there would be the most incredible uproar about it. Remember that these are people whose nearest neighbour is probably 20 kilometres away, and so there is not much known locally about their circumstances.The only way we know about their circumstances is because those members of the Bush Connection group—Mary Louise North and her supporters—went out and had look at the situation and made some effort to help. The area that is covered by Bush Connection is probably most of south-east Queensland. They are willing to go practically anywhere in that area to meet the requirements of people in desperation. But there is an awful lot of Australia that they really cannot account for, and I would like to think that, within the circles of government at both the state and federal level, serious consideration is being given to the problem of people in these circumstances, and to the need to be able to back up schemes like the reestablishment grants scheme with some real human beings.That little grade 1 student that I was referring to told the people from Bush Connection that he would never in his life put his money in a bank, because he has heard what has happened to his parents, who got in too far with banks. It is incredible that a young life should be so scarred at such an early stage by such a savage encounter with commercial reality. I do believe that across Australia we should be seeking to establish more groups like Bush Connection, because they are going in and coordinating activities and the people who are in such desperate plights at last see someone who is in their corner, taking steps on their behalf to mitigate the problems and to find a way out.I cannot tell you what has happened in the example, because it has only come to light this week. In previous cases, we have had examples where Bush Connection has been able, by using industrial psychologists and such people, to find opportunities for farmers to retrain, get degrees, go to TAFE courses and those kinds of things and basically restart their life from zero. That is an incredible trauma for people to go through, particularly when their fathers—and their fathers' fathers, probably—were there on the land making a living, and when they feel somehow less than adequate as a result of their failure. The reestablishment grants scheme is absolutely crucial. It will have to go on, and we will need to show much more compassion towards people who are caught up in the desperate situation of not being able to make a living any more on the land.16:51:0013105Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—in reply—I thank all of those members who have contributed to the debate on the Farm Household Support Amendment Bill 1999 , and particularly the honourable member for Blair for his just completed remarks. I note the general comments from members, expressing concern about the impact of low prices, droughts and other rural difficulties on so many farm families. I acknowledge that this particular scheme has been very helpful to assist some of those farmers, especially those who have made the decision that they should leave the land. That is, as the honourable member for Blair just mentioned, a very difficult time for families, particularly those families who have known nothing but farming for several generations. There is a need for the governments—and, indeed, the community as a whole—to hold out a helping hand to assist these people in such difficult circumstances.The honourable member for Blair made mention of the fact that this legislation extends the closing date and that that will therefore mean there will be a need to deal with the issue again at some later stage. I acknowledge that there will be a need to look again at these issues, but that will happen following a more comprehensive review of the scheme where we are able to examine what mechanism should be in place for the future to assist farmers in these circumstances. Since November 1997, re-establishment grants have been given to farmers in difficulty and it has provided valuable assistance to cope with the transition to a future off the farm. The payment provides generous support, up to $45,000, which can be used by farmers to launch themselves into a new career.There has been a steady stream of applications from farmers over the last two years, and rural counsellors have attested how helpful the scheme has been to farmers considering their options. The government appreciates how difficult the decision to leave farming can be. For many farmers the land means something very special to them and their farming occupation has been a cherished family tradition. Naturally, farmers are reluctant to take this difficult step. However, it is also true that for many farmers an early decision is essential if they are to maximise their equity from their property. There is always a temptation to stay for just one more season in the hope that conditions will improve. Regrettably, for many farmers, this means another year drawing down on the value of their asset, leaving them with less opportunity to rebuild their life after farming.For this reason, when the government announced the Farm Family Restart Scheme, applications for re-establishment grants were limited to the first two years of the scheme. Limiting the time was intended to encourage farmers to assess their situation and make an early decision. Professional advice was provided to people entering the program to ensure that farmers received early advice on their prospects and could act promptly. The two-year limit applied to applications for grants. Farmers can apply for a grant just before the deadline and have a further year to sell their property. Farmers can also apply for a grant before their year of income support is finished.Many farmers using the Farm Family Restart Scheme have found that it has given them a valuable breathing space to refocus their business and become more viable. To date, far more use has been made of the income support arrangements offered through the scheme, with a small number of farmers taking re-establishment grants. Farmers can obtain this assistance without putting their properties up for sale. More than 3,000 farmers have drawn on the income support over the last two years, and the shadow minister may be interested to know that about 1,200 of those are from his state.The FFRS is a part of a wider package which is improving the competitiveness and prospects of our vital rural industries. The Agriculture—Advancing Australia package dedicated $525 million to programs in support of farmers. It addressed fundamental issues such as business skills for our farmers, enhanced the capacity of farmers to risk manage through the Farm Management Deposit Scheme and provided retirement assistance for older farmers. With the AAA package the coalition has made a significant investment in the future of Australian agriculture. We have now followed that up with tax reforms which will ease the burden on farmers across the board slashing business input costs and the taxes on capital gains.The government will review the Farm Family Restart Scheme soon to confirm that the program is meeting its goals. The re-establishment grants will continue to be available for applications until the end of the current financial year while this review is in progress. Placing the new deadline in a legislative instrument does not diminish parliamentary oversight, such instruments are disallowable and will considerably simplify the process for making any further changes in the future. I thank honourable members for their contribution to the debate, and the opposition for indicating their support of the proposal and I commend the measure to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.13106Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr Truss) read a third time.Bills13106r68913106Consideration resumed from 6 December.Senate's amendments—(1) Schedule 1, item 8, page 4 (lines 15 to 17), omit the definition of Australia , substitute: Australia , when used in a geographical sense: (a) includes the Territory of Ashmore and Cartier Islands; but (b) so long as this Act or a part of this Act does not extend to the Territory of Christmas Island, does not include that Territory or that part of that Territory, as the case may be.(2) Schedule 1, item 11, page 5 (lines 1 to 3), omit the definition of Commonwealth , substitute: Commonwealth , when used in a geographical sense: (a) includes the Territory of Ashmore and Cartier Islands; but (b) so long as this Act or a part of this Act does not extend to the Territory of Christmas Island, does not include that Territory or that part of that Territory, as the case may be.(3) Schedule 1, heading to item 62, page 16 (line 4), omit the heading, substitute:62 Section 6AB(4) Schedule 1, item 62, page 16 (line 5), omit "sections", substitute "section".(5) Schedule 1, item 62, page 16 (lines 6 and 7), omit section 6AA.(6) Schedule 1, item 86, page 24 (line 8) to page 25 (line 2), omit sections 11C, 11D and 11E, substitute:11C Requirement to seek from Environment Minister advice about proposed decision involving significant risk of environmental harm(1) Before making a decision under this Act, the implementation of which is likely to result in a significant risk of harm to the environment, a Director of Quarantine must comply with the requirements of this section.(2) The Director of Quarantine must give written notice to the Environment Minister: (a) stating that consideration is to be given to the making of such a decision; and (b) requesting the Environment Minister to give advice to the Director as to the adequacy of the risk assessment process that is proposed to be followed in assessing the risk of harm to the environment.(3) After preliminary findings have been made as a result of the risk assessment process, the Director of Quarantine must give written notice to the Environment Minister request ing the Environment Minister to give advice to the Director as to the adequacy of the preliminary findings in relation to the protection of the environment.11D Provision of advice by Environment Minister(1) If a Director of Quarantine gives to the Environment Minister a notice in accordance with section 11C requesting advice as to a matter, the Environment Minister may give written advice to the Director about that matter.(2) Any such advice is to be given within 28 days after the notice was given.11E Director of Quarantine to take advice into account If the Director of Quarantine receives any advice from the Environment Minister within 28 days after the notice requesting the advice was given to the Environment Minister in accordance with section 11C, the Director must: (a) ensure that the advice is taken into account in making the relevant decision; and (b) inform the Environment Minister in writing as to how the advice was taken into account.16:57:0013107Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—I move:That the amendments be agreed to.Since the Quarantine Amendment Bill 1998 was introduced the government has reviewed two provisions and decided on amendments with respect to the referral by the Director of Quarantine of certain decisions to the environment minister and, secondly, in relation to Christmas Island. These amendments were passed in the other place a couple of weeks ago. The original part 2A of the bill required the Director of Quarantine to seek the advice of the environment minister before making a decision where implementation is likely to result in a significant risk of harm to the environment. The government has decided that, in its present form, part 2A would benefit from further clarification of the role of the environment minister in import risk assessment processes.The amendments identify more clearly when the environment minister will contribute to this process. The minister will comment on the adequacy of the risk assessment process and on the preliminary findings of the risk assessment process. The amendments will also oblige the environment minister—if he or she provides the advice—to give it within 28 days. The amendments to part 2A clarify the process and ensure that the bill more closely reflects the government's commitment announced in our environment policy at the last election to formalise the role of the environment minister.With regard to the second amendment the government has decided to retain at this stage the existing provisions in the Quarantine Act allowing this act to cover Christmas Island. Christmas Island, an external territory of Australia, is presently covered by a separate quarantine regime under the Christmas Island Act. The bill, as introduced, would have removed the enabling mechanism by which the Quarantine Act 1908 could be extended to Christmas Island by regulation. As the government is reviewing the quarantine arrangements on Christmas Island it has been decided that, pending the outcome of this review, this option should remain.17:00:0013107O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNORWU5CorioALP00—In the true spirit of Christmas, I convey to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry that the opposition will not be opposing the amendments that are now before the House. We are debating here some very specific amendments that the government has introduced to amend the Quarantine Amendment Bill 1998 , which it presented to the House some time ago.It is very important for us to grasp the history of the course of this Quarantine Amendment Bill 1998 through the parliament because it is rather instructive as to how this government conducts its business and the priorities that it has in the agriculture portfolio. I will go back to the beginning of this process. The former Labor government commissioned the Nairn report in 1996. That report was delivered to the government in 1997, I believe, and now, at the end of the century, in 1999, with barely two days left in the final parliamentary session, the government is rushing this legislation through the parliament to meet its legislative deadline.We are very happy to assist this process because we really do not want any more embarrassing delays on this piece of legislation. But the delay in the parliament passing the Quarantine Amendment Bill 1998 must be laid squarely at the feet of Ministers Anderson and Vaile, and to a lesser extent Minister Truss, who has had to pick up on this after his appointment to the portfolio.I want to put on the record our support for this legislation as it has gone through the parliament, albeit in a delayed manner. We have supported extending the focus of the quarantine task from preventive measures to halt the entry of pests and diseases at Australia's borders to measures to operate effectively beyond Australia's borders to reduce the threat of entry of these pests and diseases. In the second reading debate on this bill, we supported greater industry responsibility and involvement in the quarantine task, and we made some comments there about protecting the public interest and getting an appropriate balance between the activities of private industry in the quarantine task and the public responsibilities of government and its agency in this area. We supported greater transparency in the quarantine arrangements and the notion of sound, scientifically based risk assessments.I could go on, but it is getting a little bit late in the day. I do not think any charge of obstruction can be laid at the feet of the opposition. This inordinate delay in considering and passing this legislation is all the government's own work. I guess it is an indication of the rather low priority that the government has placed on this very important matter as far as Australian farmers and fishers are concerned.We really need to understand the process of the consideration of these amendments and the amendments themselves. It is worth putting on the public record the facts of the matter. The Nairn committee made some very specific recommendations concerning the consideration of economic and environmental matters in assessing quarantine issues. We supported the general thrust of those recommendations, as did the government. Section 11C of the original bill that the government presented to the House—in the requirement to seek from the environment minister advice about proposed decisions involving significant risk of environmental harm—stated:Before making a decision under this Act, the implementation of which is likely to result in a significant risk of harm to the environment, a Director of Quarantine must:(a) ensure that the Environment Minister is told of the Director's intention to make a decision; and(b) give the Environment Minister an assessment of the potential impact of the decision on the environment.(Extension of time granted)Then, of course, the bill went into a discussion of how that particular response from the minister for the environment ought to be handled when that advice is given by the director of quarantine.Then the matter was considered in the Senate and the government moved a very interesting series of amendments. I do not want to pour any more oil on the waters here because, at the end of the day, we in the ranks of the opposition were in the process of considering proposals from members of the caucus who have a deep and abiding interest in this issue with a view to strengthening the environmental provisions in this piece of legislation. We really did not have to do much because the government came back with its own amendments to its own legislation. We have got a very different set of propositions in this bill from what was originally proposed in the second reading of the Quarantine Amendment Bill 1998 .Provision 11C of the Senate amendments that were agreed to states:11C Requirement to seek from Environment Minister advice about proposed decision involving significant risk of environmental harm(1) Before making a decision under this Act, the implementation of which is likely to result in a significant risk of harm to the environment, a Director of Quarantine must comply with the requirements of this section.(2) The Director of Quarantine must give written notice to the Environment Minister: (a) stating that consideration is to be given to the making of such a decision; and—this is a very interesting little alteration— (b) requesting the Environment Minister to give advice to the Director as to the adequacy of the risk assessment process that is proposed to be followed in assessing the risk of harm to the environment.(3) After preliminary findings have been made as a result of the risk assessment process, the Director of Quarantine must give written notice to the Environment Minister requesting the Environment Minister to give advice to the Director as to the adequacy of the preliminary findings in relation to the protection of the environment.I guess that is a more specific set of arrangements than that which had been proposed under the original bill. I ask myself: code for what? It was a code for a struggle that took place between the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and the Minister for the Environment and Heritage—a National Party minister and a Liberal Party minister—in which, once again, the senior partner in the coalition won.GT4TRUSSMr Truss—This is a fairy story.WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNOR—Well, here are the amendments. I would say to the minister that, if it is a fairy story, he should have stuck to what he put to the parliament in the original bill, which were happy to support. We had no argument with that. We even considered toughening up the environment provisions, but we left it to Senator Hill to do that. He then heavied the National Party minister and the struggle took place. There was toing-and-froing between the two ministers' offices and—whammo!—the big foot came down once again on the National Party minister.This is not the first time that this has happened. It happened on the wool issue—the National Party ministers rolled over while the member for O'Connor and the Liberal backbench committee dictated to them what ought to be done with the stockpile. I think we still have the stockpile. That magnificent decision was a panic response by the government to One Nation—and we all know where One Nation are at the moment; they have withered on the vine. I think they have a senator over there in the Senate. I will make no more comment on people who reside in the other place. I know my predecessors have referred to them as `unrepresentative swill' but I certainly would never use that language about anybody in the Senate.GT4TRUSSMr Truss—What language would you use?WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNOR—Well, I would say in the main that the Senate has now, through its various committee system, provided a very important mechanism for amendments to be made to legislation and for issues to be considered by the government. (Extension of time granted) Of course these amendments that we are discussing here in this particular proposal are testament to this. But the simple fact is: the National Party ministers were rolled on wool, and we still have the stockpile. Against all the industry considerations, we still have the stockpile.GT4TRUSSMr Truss—What's that got to do with quarantine?WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNOR—Well, I do not think the point was lost on you, Minister. I made the point that you brought in these amendments—the government amended its own bill—and I just explained, on the public record, why this happened; why you did not proceed with the original legislation that you put before the House. It is quite simple: Senator Hill, the environment minister said, `I want a bigger say in this.' You had some toing-and-froing—we know what goes on over there. You were toing-and-froing on this piece of legislation and you got done over by the Liberal minister. It is becoming a bit of a habit with people in the National Party. When important decisions have to be made and you have to argue them in the context of the coalition that you have, you do not carry the day. That is why this is relevant. I just gave the example of wool. I am saying that National Party ministers in this respect are serial offenders—you keep getting rolled by Liberal ministers on these very important issues.The other point I want to make to you, Minister, is this: you and I both know that this is one of the most critical areas in this portfolio. The issue of quarantine is critical to so many rural industries. We had a report, a very good report, that had bipartisan support. On the back of that, we offered you our cooperation in getting this legislation through the parliament. And then what happened? It fell like autumn leaves on the ground to rot away in the bowels of the coalition while Liberal Party stockbrokers and other Liberal Party lawyers on the front bench—with due respect to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration sitting behind you—who periodically run all over you, put all this on the backburner and the rural sector had to cool its heels and wait in the wings for the government to make a decision.Having said all that, I do not want to cause the minister any more pain on this because I think that in the coalition enough pain has been caused to him by the toing-and-froing that we understand has occurred over the amendments that we are debating here today. He ought to take some comfort from the fact that we are supporting these amendments. We do consider that environmental issues are important and ought to be considered in the process of quarantine assessment. You are the government. You have determined that this is the way you want to proceed. It may well have been done another way. There may have been other ways that the environment minister could have inputted, and those could have become the subject of amendments that now find themselves on the floor of this House being debated at this point in time. We offer you in good faith our support for the amendments that you are proposing here. We thank the House that finally we have the opportunity to pass this very important piece of legislation to the rural sector—the Quarantine Amendment Bill 1998 .17:14:0013110Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—Following that little exercise in fantasy it is obvious we are coming up to Christmas when there are lots of stories that are told, most of them more truthful than the one we have just heard from the shadow minister. It is true that the Quarantine Amendment Bill 1998 has been around for a long time. That is one thing he said which is obviously accurate. In his desire to blame the government, he exclusively forgets the uncooperative role of his own senators in the other place when on occasions this bill could have been dealt with but was not.The amendments which the shadow minister took 15 minutes to comment on are in fact quite minor. They do not fundamentally change the design of the original bill. They give a clearer expression of what was the stated government policy at the last election. This bill fulfils a government election policy. The amendments merely clarify the way in which the minister for the environment will have a role in this quarantine process. They change not one iota of the substance of what was intended. They merely clarify the way in which the consultations can occur. So, in spite of all the funny stories, in spite of the 15 minutes of empty rhetoric, the reality is that these amendments improve and clarify the legislation. I am pleased now that the opposition have come to support it and that it can complete its passage through the parliament.Since we are in the Christmas spirit, may I extend my best wishes for the Christmas season to my opposite number and hope that he will tell his children and grandchildren and whoever might be around the Christmas table more truthful stories than the ones we have just heard.Question resolved in the affirmative.Parliamentary Zone1311013110Motion (by Mr Slipper, for Mr Anderson) proposed:That, in accordance with section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974, the House approves the following proposals for works in the Parliamentary Zone which were presented to the House on 6 December 1999, namely:(a) landscaping works at the John Gorton building;(b) temporary works associated with the running of the National Capital 100 V8 Supercar race carnival;(c) refurbishment of the Treasury building;(d) installation of removable banner poles at the National Archives of Australia; and(e) East Block and West Block car parks.17:17:0013110McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—This is a motion that the opposition supported in the Senate and we will support here. In the normal course of events, it would not even warrant debate, because almost everything in it is very routine and would receive that bipartisan support which you would expect. But I particularly want to say something about the V8 car race, which is an issue of some significance to many of my constituents and those of my colleague the member for Canberra, and has been of some notoriety around the ACT. In saying that, I do not qualify the fact that the opposition will be voting for the motion.Given that I am speaking on the motion overall, I want to say in a very brief comment that I welcome the moves with regard to the refurbishment of the Treasury building. This has been another stage in a measured process, started many years ago by the previous government and continued by this one, of a series of gradual refurbishments of important buildings in the triangle, maintaining the standard and quality of buildings of significance to Australia and improving the working conditions of many Australians working for the government in a range of departments. So I welcome that and I support it. It would not in its own right have been something I would have stood up to speak about.But I have to say that my support for the temporary works associated with the V8 Supercar race carnival is slightly tempered. There is not much enthusiasm for it. I do not have any problem with people running car races around Canberra any more than in any other city in Australia. Australians are entitled to enjoy their various forms of entertainment and sport and, if it causes a little disruption to the rest of us, that is the price we pay for bike races, walks for charity—all those things that happen that other people have interests in. The fact that this is not something to which I am particularly attracted is not the slightest bit relevant. I have no problem with it being in Canberra. There is nothing special about this city. It can happen anywhere in Australia; it can happen here.The parliamentary triangle is not, in my view, the most appropriate place for this car race. I say in qualified terms that I wish it were happening somewhere else in Canberra. But I hope that over the last 12 years in parliament and previously in public life I have not indicated a predisposition to run around banning everything I do not agree with. I would prefer that it were not happening in the triangle and I want to say some things about the way in which it has developed.The ACT government has put this proposal forward. It will bring tourists to Canberra in the winter, which is always a time of serious problems for the accommodation and restaurant industry in the ACT, so I welcome that. For that reason I welcome the fact that the car race is occurring. But, if it were up to me, I would prefer that it were held somewhere else in Canberra. I do not wish it were outside the ACT; I wish it were going around some of the other streets rather than these. But I do understand the reason for it and I accept it.We should not underestimate—I think some of the commentary has underestimated—the extent to which on this weekend in question there will be some Australians in Canberra coming to the other institutions in the triangle for a one-off important visit, and they will find it significantly disrupted. They will find the pleasure that many Australians get in visiting Canberra and the great national institutions in the triangle somewhat qualified by the existence of this car race and the limitations it will make on access to and the calm and pleasant enjoyment of the National Gallery, the National Library, Old Parliament House, the National Science and Technology Centre, et cetera.I thought it was appropriate to put that qualification on the table because, otherwise, I think there might have been a sense that we were all here enthusiastically endorsing this proposal. Rather, what we are doing is allowing it to go ahead, saying, `While we might prefer this not to be so, not everybody who wants to do anything in the parliamentary triangle ought to have to have the unanimous support of every member of parliament before they're allowed to do it.' I want to speak briefly, therefore, on one other matter with regard to this item, and then I will reiterate my support for it and sit down.I have reservations about the process by which the ACT government got to this point. My colleagues in the ACT Legislative Assem bly, led by the leader of the Labor Party there, Jon Stanhope, and shadow Treasurer, Ted Quinlan, have articulated those. Well might they have those concerns when we have here a proposal for a $7 million initial expenditure of taxpayers' money in the ACT and thereafter $2 million a year. If the event is as successful as its proponents hope and if the cost control is as good as is currently proposed, I think in economic terms the cost benefit is there.But why wouldn't everybody have grave doubts about the cost benefit of a proposal from the Carnell government? Everybody in Canberra knows what happened with the Bruce Stadium—there was a serious proposition that has cost the taxpayers millions. We got a good result. The Bruce Stadium is a fine outcome, although I have some reservations about some of the ways it was done; but that is another question. The way in which it was carried out, with the lack of cost control and of concern for the taxpayers' dollar, makes everybody in the ACT apprehensive about this project—about the slapdash process, about the lack of cost benefit, about the lack of rigour and about the hype instead of the analysis. The ACT government have too often been shown to the taxpayers of the ACT as enthusiasts rather than analysts, as proponents of the hype and hysteria and bread and circuses rather than the serious business of government and of proper administration.So I am concerned about various aspects of the V8 Supercar race carnival, but I think the decision that the Senate has made, and which we are now being asked to make, is that we are not going to be the censors. We are not going to be the arbiters. This will not make a change such that the parliament or the institutions of the triangle cannot go about their business. It will not be a permanent change that will damage the status of these institutions for which we are the custodians. So, whatever my personal preference, I think the decision is correct. I support the motion. It should be allowed to go ahead.In conclusion, I notice that there are two other proposals to be moved by the minister. Rather than speaking twice more, I will use two sentences to say that I welcome the next two proposals—one relating to the work on the Australian War Memorial, and the other to the Weston Creek staff colleges, to which I understand there has been a positive response. If those two proposals are going ahead as planned, I welcome them. I hope that they will be expeditious and successful, but I know my colleague the member for Canberra wants to speak on those. I support the motion.17:26:0013112Ellis, Annette, MPMs ELLIS5K6NamadgiALP00—I particularly want to take the opportunity to address the V8 Supercar race as well as to reiterate or reinforce the words of the previous speaker in relation to the other two proposals relating to Canberra. The V8 Supercar race is to be held, as we know, on the June long weekend this coming year. I speak not only because I am a local representative of the electorate of Canberra but also as a member of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories, a committee which performs an advisory role to the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government, currently Senator Ian Macdonald.It is fair to say that this issue has had some currency in the local community. Some people very strongly oppose the idea, and others, quite frankly, are looking forward to the event. I guess it depends on your perspective of car races. It is probably also fair to say that, with some very questionable decisions, in the planning area particularly, in recent times—and I refer to the Bruce Stadium development and to the development of a futsal slab near Commonwealth Bridge—the ACT government tends to have a very slapdash, full hype way in its personality towards the development of these sorts of things. If you couple that with some other very unfortunate and sad incidences and outcomes that have occurred under the jurisdiction of the ACT government in recent times, it is not surprising that that government does not attract very high levels of confidence in the community at large in Canberra at the moment.So, when a decision comes along to hold a V8 Supercar race around the parliamentary precinct, it is no surprise to hear a range of objections based on very many reasons. Of course, I think that this situation of objection was added to quite dramatically when the announcement for ticket sales was made prior to these works being given approval. It is not difficult to understand why there will be a great deal of hesitation, a great deal of doubt and a great deal of question within the Canberra community at large about exactly what is happening in relation to the development of the V8 Supercar race.From my point of view as a member of that joint standing committee, I would like to take the opportunity to point out very clearly that we have an advisory role. We do not actually have the ability to absolutely veto an event like this. We can make comment to ministers and to the minister concerned, and we did that. There have been some reports in the media here from some of those lobbying very strongly against this race that maybe the committee could have just said, `No, you can't do it.' But it is not quite as simple as that. The committee received very detailed briefings on the issue from the National Capital Authority. Through that process and as a result of that process, we had some very serious concerns as a committee—and I am speaking on my own behalf here—which we then transmitted to the minister back in September. Those concerns have been outlined to any parties since that time that have a displayed interest in the situation.We had a unanimous position on this. Paramount to everything was the question of safety—safety of participants, spectators, visitors and the residents of Canberra. The issue of the impact on residential areas was also discussed. The committee appreciated—and, as a member of that committee, I appreciated—that the event will attract large numbers of visitors to Canberra. However, it is essential that the event be contained in the appropriately designated areas.In the staging of other similar events in the country, it is not all that unusual to see fairly dramatic or spectacular photography appear in the local press the day after an event which indicates less than acceptable behaviour by some people attending these events. Sometimes they can depict a lack of safety or other issues that are of concern to the local community where the event is held. I have the very strong view that, whatever the designated area in literal terms where these works approvals are granted, the events simply must be staged in the most responsible and proper fashion within those areas.The effective management of the event in every aspect and sense of the word `management' is critical to any measure of a successful or other outcome of the event. The ACT government, through the Canberra Tourism and Events Corporation, will at the conclusion of the event be answerable to the ACT community on the outcome of the project. The financial viability, the visitor numbers, the safety measures proving adequate or otherwise and so on will all be at the door of the ACT government. I do not want to see any of those things fail.There has been quite a debate—given the background of the Bruce Stadium project and other things, a legitimate debate—about the wish of this community, seeing that the Canberra community is now putting many millions of dollars into the beginning of this process, to have accountability and that a full understanding of the event be clearly put to the ACT community before the event so that everyone involved knows exactly what they are up for and can make their views clearly known. There is no doubt that as more detail becomes available—and a little bit more is coming out as time progresses—some great inconvenience will occur, particularly in relation to access to buildings and areas within this precinct, as the member for Fraser said. It is absolutely essential that safe, secure traffic and pedestrian movement within the area is available where it is required. It is essential that emergency services for the purpose of the race or for any other purpose within the precinct have acceptable egress through the area.I have read recently that tourism figures in Canberra are down, and I am sad about that. I am also disappointed to see that the Floriade numbers have decreased over the last couple of years. Initiatives to improve tourism and, therefore, our local economy in Canberra are welcomed. I am not personally totally con vinced that a V8 supercar race is going to even begin to solve those sorts of problems, particularly the tourism problem. But the outcome will rest with the ACT government.The project has been the subject of some controversy to date. I do not think any member could disagree with the requirement of any community that, when it is being asked to put up hard dollars in the hope and the expectation that a good return will occur, it be given the full story, the complete picture, of the cost and the true projected figures of success by way of financial return and the exposure of Canberra in a favourable way to Australia and the international scene. We are a bit raw here in Canberra on financial bottom lines because of some questionable outcomes in the past. It is only very reasonable to ask those questions particularly of the local government rather than the federal government. It is in their bailiwick.I do not know that I will go to this event—it is not something that would attract me, whether it was here, in Bathurst or elsewhere—but I do know some people in our community are eagerly looking forward to it. It is not my role to stand here and block it, or attempt to stop it, even if I had that power, but I do have a definite role, and that is to do all I can within the parliamentary committee and in this chamber to emphasise the need for proper, adequate safety measures and crowd control measures, that the respect and need of the local community is not disregarded in this period and that realistic and honest reporting to the community occurs now, in the lead-up to, during and following the event.I only hope that it is as successful as everybody is championing it to be. The major attraction, the government's big billboard advertising attraction, is to say that this will allow the world to see Canberra. I can think of many other, more pleasant ways the world could see Canberra, but if that is true and an event like this is going to allow that to happen then let us hope that the outcome is as favourable as they and I want it to be and is something we can see repeated rather than regretted as having been done without the proper things being attended to in the first place. 17:36:0013114Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—In closing, I do understand the contributions made by the honourable members for Fraser and Canberra. It seems to me that some of the things they mentioned in their contributions are more appropriately related to internal Australian Capital Territory politics, and I certainly do not intend to comment on those internal ACT matters. I do, however, want to stress to honourable members that all works proposed are temporary and that the period of time in which works will be present in the parliamentary zone has been minimised, with site establishment commencing on 3 April 2000 and all reinstatement complete by 30 June 2000.The National Capital Authority has indicated to the minister that it has considered the proposed works and is prepared to issue works approval under section 12(1) of the Australian Capital Territory (Planning and Land Management) Act 1988 subject to a number of conditions, including satisfaction of the provisions of section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974.A condition of approval by the National Capital Authority would be that the race organisers indemnify the Commonwealth against any claim arising from the conduct of the event. All works and restoration will occur at no cost to the Commonwealth and a bond of $200,000 will be required by the authority to ensure that funds are available for any additional remedial work should this prove to be necessary. I am advised that the authority will inspect the site during the restoration process to ensure that all work is carried out to the high standard appropriate to the parliamentary zone and Australia's national capital.The minister has lodged detailed papers with the Table Office of the House, and given an undertaking to notify the parliament of significant changes should there be any and to lay any revised plans for such changes before both houses by March 2000. Comment was made by the member for Canberra and the member for Fraser about the desirability of the parliamentary triangle being used as the site, so to speak, for this particular race. I am informed that one of the reasons that the parliamentary triangle has been chosen is the television and newspaper coverage. The backdrop of a number of important national institutions will receive prominence, just as the famous casino and waterfront in Monte Carlo receive exposure through the Formula One Grand Prix when it is held there. As the ACT government suggested that this is the world seeing Canberra, if this race is a success, it means that the focus of those watching the race throughout Australia and the world will be on some important national buildings at the heart of our national capital. As honourable members mentioned, tourist dollars will be brought to Canberra during the quiet period of winter, and that of course is also something to be applauded. I commend the motion to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.Committees13115131151311517:39:0013115Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—I move:That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Anzac Hall extension, Australian War Memorial, Canberra.The Australian War Memorial proposes to build a modern, flexible exhibition hall of 3,000 square metres to showcase its world-class collection of large technology objects. It is planned that Anzac Hall will utilise the technique `object theatre' to interpret and display its many wartime relics. An example of these relics includes the Japanese midget submarine which, when finally displayed, will be suspended as if caught in antisubmarine nets—as it was in Sydney Harbour in 1942. Another example, once its conservation work is completed, is the Lancaster Bomber G for George, which will appear as if in a bombing raid with a German fighter poised menacingly above it.Four years ago the Australian War Memorial began an exciting and challenging major program to revitalise its galleries, which had become dated. The galleries were not communicating as well as they might and were not using modern display techniques, particularly multimedia. In its summary statement to the Public Works Committee, the War Memorial turned to its founder, Charles Bean, and his original vision for the institution. He once said:We are out to make our war museum, our war gallery and our war library, if possible, not merely fine museums for Australia, but the finest that the world contains.As I stated when referring this matter to the Public Works Committee, the first stage of revitalising the galleries and facilities in the main building is now complete. It should be noted that there has been an increase of over 30 per cent in attendance since the reopening of the galleries by the Prime Minister in March this year. It became strikingly apparent during the renewal program that the public had strong expectations of seeing many of the large major icons of the collection when they visited. Unfortunately, most of these are in a repository in the outer Canberra suburb of Mitchell with limited public access.This stage of the Anzac Memorial Hall development will go a long way towards satisfying further the strong public demand for such displays of our nation's proud heritage. The building design of Anzac Hall comprises two major elements: a wall which rests 20 metres behind the main building and acts as a backdrop to the iconic form of the main building, and a large, slightly curved, metal roof which fans out from the centre point of the dome and sits behind the wall. The wall conceals some of the bulk of the building which is dug into the ground so that it cannot be seen from Anzac Parade. The roof sits lower and into the landscape so that it does not dominate the view from Mount Ainslie.A simple glass link will join the historic, main War Memorial building to the clean and striking architecture of Anzac Hall. The site of Anzac Hall is the current car park facility for staff and visitors. A new car park will be constructed on the western side of the Admin istration Building, and all associated road, pedestrian access and other external works will need to be completed before the existing car park is closed. This new area will provide 256 spaces. An additional 109 spaces, including 10 disabled parking spaces, can be accommodated in the future on the eastern side of the building. The Australian War Memorial is very confident that all of the 109 additional car park spaces designated for the eastern side of the site can be constructed prior to the building opening in April 2001. It is seeking tenders, which will include sealing of all car parks. The Anzac Hall project has a budget of $11.9 million funded from the Federation Fund. Subject to parliamentary approval, tenders are expected to be called early next year, with work scheduled for completion by 30 March 2001. It is planned that the building will be officially opened on Anzac Day 2001.The Public Works Committee in its report has recommended that this project proceed. The memorial enjoys a close and cooperative working partnership with the National Capital Authority and the Australian Heritage Commission. It is sure that its architects will provide design solutions which will meet the issues that these agencies raised on the appropriateness of the designated roofing materials. The memorial is engaging a disabled access consultant to advise on the internal and external design of Anzac Hall and its associated works. The memorial will continue its program of ensuring that its facilities enable visitors with disabilities to enjoy their visit and participate in the full experiences offered by the memorial. In closing, I would thank the committee for its support. I commend the motion to the House.17:45:0013116Ellis, Annette, MPMs ELLIS5K6NamadgiALP00—Very briefly I would put on record my appreciation of the report of the Joint Committee on Public Works. There is no doubt that the Australian War Memorial is one of the most relevant and important memorials in this country. I think it vies with this building as being the most `tourism attractive' in Canberra. Many people come here specifically and on more than one occasion—sometimes again and again—to spend time going through the War Memorial.This will be a very popular and well timed development at the Australian War Memorial. I know that it will give the people at the War Memorial the chance they have been looking for for many years to enhance the display area and to add to public displays some of the wonderful memorabilia and exhibits they have out at the Mitchell repository. I am very supportive of and welcome this initiative.Having attended many Anzac Day ceremonies at the War Memorial, and in the knowledge that the extensions are planned to be opened on Anzac Day 2001, I know an enormous ceremony will become super-enormous. A great number of people will come specifically on Anzac Day to enjoy the opening as well as to attend the memorial service. I endorse the report and welcome the initiative.Question resolved in the affirmative.131161311617:47:0013116Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—I move:That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Staff Colleges collocation project, Weston Creek, ACT.The single services currently conduct middle level officer training in their individual staff colleges. Collocation of the three colleges onto one site was most recently proposed in the context of the Defence Reform Program. The service colleges are presently located at Queenscliff in Victoria, Balmoral in Sydney and Fairbairn in the ACT—for the Army, the Royal Australian Navy and the Royal Australian Air Force, respectively.The Department of Defence proposes to collocate the three existing staff service colleges and the Defence Public Service management course in new facilities to be constructed at Weston Creek in the Australian Capital Territory. These facilities will sit adjacent to the existing Australian Defence College. The works now proposed are needed to improve efficiency in the delivery of middle level officer training and thereby realise savings in operating costs and reinforce an emerging Australian Defence Force joint culture. The works are in three main components consisting of:. the main college building of up to three levels to accommodate educational and administrative facilities;. supporting works, involving a replacement catering facility and upgraded library and gymnasium; and. the augmentation of existing site infrastructure, roadways, parking facilities and landscaping.The estimated outturn cost of the project is $28 million. Subject to parliamentary approval, construction will commence in December this year—that is, this month—with the objective of having it completed in February 2001.In its report the committee has recommended that this project proceed. The Department of Defence agrees with the recommendations of the committee. I thank the committee, and I commend the motion to the House.17:49:0013117Ellis, Annette, MPMs ELLIS5K6NamadgiALP00—The staff colleges collocation project in Weston Creek, ACT, is right in the heart of my electorate. This was a commitment of the Prime Minister in the lead-up to the federal election. I might add that it was also a commitment from our side of politics. So, of course, it is obvious that this project carries my full support.The Weston Creek Community Council, a community group within that area, had good constructive input to the committee process; it was a consultation that I was particularly pleased to see occur. That group was very supportive of the project, but it took the opportunity to bring to the attention of the committee the collocation of this project with the Mount Stromlo Observatory, which is part of the ANU and is a very important part of science within the ACT.The group wanted to take the opportunity to explain to the committee that, whilst it was fully supportive, it would be very pleased to see initiatives taken within the construction phase to ensure that any lighting necessary for the development is done in consultation with the proper authorities and with the Mount Stromlo people because there is a concern that, as lighting from the Weston Creek area specifically tends to grow with development, it can impact on the effectiveness of Mount Stromlo. It was not to be seen as a negative but purely as a constructive way of assisting the process for the construction.I understand that the Public Works Committee looked at both this particular location and others, and I also believe that they were lobbied fairly heavily by very effective members in this place to consider the project be undertaken elsewhere. I have maintained a very strong interest in this whole inquiry process over the past few months, and I obviously welcome the recommendations of the Public Works Committee. The project is of the value of $28 million, including design costs, construction costs, professional fees and charges, furniture and fittings and so on.It is planned to have all work substantially complete and accessible before the end of next year, intending a student intake for the year 2001. During the construction period, which is expected to be around 12 to 14 months, an average of about 80 personnel will be directly employed on construction activities, and there will be flow-on job opportunities through associated industry—something that my electorate is very pleased to see.On completion of the project, the total population at the Weston Creek campus is expected to increase from about 108 staff and students presently associated with the Australian Defence College activities to a total of around 370 from the start of that first academic year. They will comprise around 240 students—60 from the Australian Defence College and 180 on the proposed Australian command and staff course. The remainder are Defence and contract staff supporting the Weston Creek campus for education and administration. This project brings together in the one facility middle level officer command and staff training at the major equivalent level, currently conducted at separate single service staff colleges, as outlined by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration.The recommendation for this collocation followed a Defence Efficiency Review recommendation. Canberra is the national capital. We have Duntroon here, we have the Australian Defence College here and it is both logical and sensible to recommend that this collocation project go ahead. The ACT community and economy will benefit from this project. The Weston Creek community itself will benefit more directly. I welcome the report of the Public Works Committee and look forward to seeing the successful completion of this project in the early part of the year 2001.17:53:0013118Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—Whilst I enthusiastically endorse everything my colleague has said and it is true to say that this proposal was endorsed by the Defence Efficiency Review process, in fact it originated from a parliamentary report entitled Officer Education: the military after next brought down by the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, which I was pleased to chair. The last time I spoke on this issue, the deputy speaker in the chair—who was actually a member of the committee—pointed out that I did not properly acknowledge the coalition members' contributions at the time. Please let me do so now. I have often said that I would never have got the report through without the assistance of the former Speaker, Mr Sinclair, who was then deputy chairman of the Defence Subcommittee.I would also like to show some of my warts by saying this is the same report that the junior minister at the time—the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel, Bronwyn Bishop—referred to as that `dreadful Price report'. It is pleasing to say that, notwithstanding that dreadful Price report, the government is spending some $28 million to implement one of its important recommendations.I would like to reacquaint the House with a couple of the concepts behind that whole review of the professional development of officers. It is true, as the honourable member for Canberra suggests, that the committee saw the development of Canberra as being a focal point in the professional development of our 11,000-odd officers, as it was at the time, as a key recommendation. Having said that, the closure of Queenscliff—having been there a couple of times—is really a matter of great sorrow because it is one of the truly beautiful locations in Australia.The key point is this: as we are seeing in all the operations that we mount and so many of the exercises, jointery is very important. When you get to the command and staff course level in the services, it is important that the single services should not have the unique development of those particular officers; in other words, being able to develop a cohort, whether they come from the Air Force, Navy or Army, going through a command and staff college is very important. Collocation does not just mean locating people on the same site. It also has behind it the concept that there should be a joint training in those things that are appropriate as part of the course with the other part being taken over by the single services. I think the initiative will serve the defence forces and their continuing excellent reputation well.One of the other recommendations of the committee looked at ADFA. As you would be aware, Mr Deputy Speaker, when the report was tabled it was costing the Defence Force $331,000 for each graduate. It is the most expensive and elite undergraduate course in Australia. The committee posed the question as to whether it might not be better to allow people to get their undergraduate degree at one of the existing 32 institutions that have as their core mission the training of undergraduates and then doing the finishing off within the Defence Force.At the moment more than 50 per cent of the budget for the professional development of officers is spent at ADFA. I think that is a huge distortion in the expenditure equation. Had the committee's recommendations been implemented, an amount of $50 million could have been further spent on the remaining officers. It had the other advantage that, if you had selected people to do their undergraduate training at universities, instead of a small cohort of some 300, you could pick 1,000 people and subsidise them through university. For those who did not meet the full-time officer requirement, they might then go into the reserves or may even want a full-time career as other rank personnel. So you were broadening out your officer intake. I still think this is a challenge for any government to meet.I might say that it was the intention of the committee to enhance ADFA, build on its postgraduate activities and make it a centre of excellence in military professional development. For example, the committee envisaged that a retiring CINCPAC or even a retiring CDF might be offered a year's appointment as a visiting professor so that all that experience, knowledge and expertise would not be lost to the nation.The other recommendation that the government has ignored is an equally important one: there should be a tri-service pre-commissioning college for the development of officers once they have graduated so that again we do not have the single service institutions.When I tabled the report Officer Education: the military after next I said that, whilst the report contained very few recommendations, it would not be the committee that would be judged by its recommendations; the government would be judged for the recommendations it chose to implement or not implement.Last but not least, can I make it quite clear from the Labor Party perspective that this was not a reference that the committee itself sought. It was a reference that the then Minister for Defence gave the committee, keen to see reform carried out. I am pleased to be supporting the proposals put by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration today as recommended by the Public Works Committee. But as to whether this subject is finished, I think not. I think it will be revisited. I do believe that as we look into the next century and the quality of the officers that we require people will again return to this report for some inspiration about what needs to be done.Question resolved in the affirmative.131191311918:01:0013119Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—I move:That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Defence Science and Technology Organisation rationalisation project, Melbourne.The Department of Defence proposes to rationalise and consolidate the Melbourne facilities of the Defence Science and Technology Organisation. The Defence Science and Technology Organisation, or DSTO, is part of the Department of Defence. It conducts research and advises on the application of science and technology best suited to Australia's defence and security needs. The Aeronautical and Maritime Research Laboratory, known as AMRL, is one of the two major research laboratories in the DSTO and currently operates from a number of sites throughout Australia. Its two principal sites are located in Melbourne, one at Fishermens Bend and the other at Maribyrnong.The current dual site arrangement presents significant operational and cost inefficiencies and also impacts on the quality and efficiency of the research and development activities undertaken by the laboratory. This proposal will lead to a reduction in operational costs and enhanced effectiveness of the research program. At the same time it will allow for the reduction in property holdings by rationalisation onto the Fishermens Bend site.The first main component of the project is relocation and consolidation of existing capabilities. The project includes new and refurbished facilities to relocate and consolidate the following existing research activities: maritime platforms, combatant protection and nutrition, and science corporate management. The second is integrated technologies. The proposal also includes initiatives which will result in integrated common technologies across the following areas: nuclear, biological and chemical protection investigation; mechanical testing; and advance composites fabrication. The third is other enhanced capabilities. The following enhanced capabilities are also proposed as part of the AMRL investment: new Airframes and Engines Division research thrusts, large scale maritime and aircraft structures testing, on-site conference capability, thermal testing and structural component holding.The estimated outturn cost of the proposal is $56.171 million. Subject to parliamentary approval and environmental approval, construction will start in mid-2000 and be completed some 2½ years later. I commend the motion to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.131201312018:04:0013120Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLESOT4LaTrobeLP10—On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee of Public Accounts and Audit I present the committee's report entitled, Report 370 Defence life cycle costing; Commonwealth guarantees, indemnities and letters of comfort—Review of Auditor-General's reports 1997-98—Fourth quarter .Ordered that the report be printed.OT4Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLES—by leave—This report is our review of Auditor-General's reports for the fourth quarter of 1997-98. The committee held a public hearing in May of this year to discuss these issues with the relevant Commonwealth agencies. I will briefly discuss each issue in turn. The audit report on life cycle costing at the Department of Defence found that there was considerable scope for Defence to further promote and implement its policy of whole of life costing. Our report encourages Defence to implement this policy more rigorously.Sound costing is a crucial basis for good decision making. This is particularly relevant for Defence, which has a significant asset base. The Defence policy accords with Commonwealth procurement guidelines that purchasing be effective and efficient. However, the JCPAA agrees with the ANAO that its life cycle costing policy should be promoted and implemented more effectively.At Defence, life cycle costs are estimated to be between two and three times the value of capital items. The objective of life cycle costing analysis is to facilitate decisions that achieve maximum value for money over the whole life of an asset. Because acquisition costs at Defence are so substantial it is vital that the Commonwealth is assured that taxpayers' money is spent as effectively as possible. While the committee understands that life cycle costing is not always easy or cheap, we nevertheless urge Defence to implement it to the best of its ability. In particular, we urge Defence to require tenderers to make contractual commitments regarding life cycle costs.Audit Report No. 47 investigated the management of Commonwealth guarantees, indemnities and letters of comfort. This was a follow-up to a previous audit conducted in 1996. A more recent audit found that there had been considerable improvement in the guidance provided to agencies and also in the management of these instruments by Commonwealth agencies. The JCPAA held a public hearing at which several Commonwealth agencies informed the committee of relevant developments.We note that there is room for further improvement in the management of these instruments, and we recommend that the ANAO monitor the outcomes of the managed funds policy. It is gratifying to note that the overall level of Commonwealth exposure for these instruments fell from $415 billion in 1996 to $215 billion in 1997.I conclude by thanking, on behalf of the committee, those who contributed their time and expertise to the committee's review hearing. I am also indebted to my colleagues on the committee who have dedicated much time and effort to reviewing these Auditor-General's reports. As well, I would like to thank the members of the secretariat who were involved in the inquiry: Dr Margot Kerley, who is the committee secretary, Ms Rose Verspaandonk, Ms Tiana Gray and Ms Maria Pappas. I commend the report to the House. 18:08:0013121Cox, David, MPMr COX83UKingstonALP00—by leave—I will confine myself to that part of Australian National Audit Office report No. 370 relating to Commonwealth guarantees, indemnities and letters of comfort. This is a critical issue in terms both of risk management and accountability. The Joint Standing Committee of Public Accounts and Audit held a public hearing on this issue to ensure that it maintained the maximum amount of profile and to remind all Commonwealth agencies of its importance.The peak of these identified exposures was at 30 June 1996 when they amounted to $415 billion. This figure included both Commonwealth superannuation liabilities and $233 billion off-balance sheet liabilities from the Commonwealth Bank. These exposures were estimated at $215 billion a year later after the removal of the public sector superannuation liabilities and the sale of the Commonwealth Bank. The sale of the last tranche of the Commonwealth Bank was a decision of the former Labor government in its last budget; a decision in part informed by a desire to reduce the Commonwealth government's exposure to its off-balance sheet liabilities.The remaining $215 billion of exposures comprised loan guarantees of $10 billion, of which $6 billion was in the Industry, Science and Tourism portfolio; non-loan guarantees of $201 billion, of which almost $195 billion was in the Treasury portfolio; and indemnities of $3 million, of which $1.8 billion was given by Primary Industries and Energy and $1 billion by Defence. Letters of comfort of an unspecified value had been given by Finance and Administration and Transport and Regional Development. These exposures are significant, and the parliament's interest in this issue should, I hope, ensure that agencies act to minimise them and, where they are unavoidable, seek diligently to manage the attendant risks.13121Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLESOT4LaTrobeLP10—I move:That the House take note of the report.I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.Delegation Reports13121131211312118:10:0013121Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUSCU4HindmarshLP10—by leave—I present the report of the Australian parliamentary delegation to Italy and the 102nd Conference of the Inter-Parliamentary Union held in Berlin from 6 to 16 October 1999. I seek leave to make a short statement in relation to the report.Leave granted.CU4Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUS—As its deputy leader, I am pleased to table the report on the Australian parliamentary delegation to Italy from 2 to 8 October, and also to the 102nd Inter-Parliamentary Conference in Berlin from 9 to 16 October 1999. Unfortunately our leader, Mr Somlyay, the member for Fairfax, became ill on the way to the conference and could not continue with the delegation. He was missed, but the delegation continued its work in a way that brought great credit to Australia.The delegation's report shows the visit to Italy was highly successful and that relations between Australia and Italy, based as they are on trade and migration, are well established and harmonious. This relationship has been reinforced in recent times with Italy committing 600 defence personnel to the Australian led INTERFET mission in East Timor. I can assure members of the House that the delegation took every opportunity to express the appreciation of the Australian parliament and people for this commitment and to reinforce the need for a sustained commitment over the coming years in order for East Timor to take its place in the international community.The Italian parliament program for the visit focused initially on Florence and Tuscany, a regional area with strong links to Australia. Florence has city status with Sydney; yarn and fabric manufacturers import fine quality Australian wool, and wine and olive oil producers export to Australia and also closely liaise with our local manufacturers. And then on to Rome, where the delegation met Senator Toia, the Undersecretary for Foreign Affairs; Monsignor Migliore, the Vatican Undersecretary for Relations with States; and the Speaker of the Italian Chamber of Deputies. Extensive discussions were held with the chairs and members of six parliamentary committees. The delegation also participated in a public audience and were received by His Holiness Pope John Paul II at St Peter's Square in the Vatican. As evidenced in its detailed report, the delegation considers that it fully met the aims and objectives of its visit.Part 2 of the report records the delegation's considerable contribution to the work of the 102nd Inter-Parliamentary Conference in Berlin. This contribution is summarised on page 26 of the delegation's report, and includes: Australia submitting a memorandum and draft resolution on `Contribution of parliaments to ensuring respect for and promoting international humanitarian law on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the Geneva Convention'; Senator McKiernan's participation in the debate and chairing of the drafting committee on the topic; Australia submitting a memorandum and draft resolutions on `The need to revise the current global financial and economic model'; and my participation in the debate and chairing of the drafting committee on the topic. I might say that there were only three topics debated and considered at the conference, and for Australia to chair the drafting committee of two of those committees is quite an accolade for Australia and indicates the high regard in which we are held by the Inter-Parliamentary Union.Senator Hogg participated in the debate on a supplementary item, in which he talked on the contribution of parliaments to the peaceful coexistence of ethnic, cultural and religious minorities, including migrant populations, within one state marked by tolerance and full respect for their human rights. Mrs Crosio joined me at the meeting of women parliamentarians. While I am sure that Mrs Crosio will speak for herself, I think I can speak on her behalf and say that it was indeed very interesting to see the issues that are concerning women parliamentarians. Mrs Crosio and Mr Barresi contributed to the general debate held during the conference, with both speaking on East Timor. Finally, Senator McKiernan was elected to the vice-presidency of the 2nd Committee on Parliamentary, Juridical and Human Rights Questions.The IPU is about dialogue and goodwill between parliaments, and the delegation was particularly pleased to hold specific meetings with members of the Yugoslav and Indonesian IPU delegations. The report records in detail the deliberations and resolutions of the IPU and, in particular, I would draw the attention of honourable members to the report of the IPU Committee on the Human Rights of Parliamentarians.The delegation's participation in the IPU was impressive. We ended up chairing two of the three drafting committees constituted during the week, as I have already mentioned, and this is certainly in keeping with the contributions made before by Australian delegations. The report rightly acknowledges the contributions of many people, in Australia, Italy and Berlin, who assisted the delegation, and we really do sincerely thank them for all help that they gave us.I thank the members of the delegation; our acting leader, Senator McKiernan; Mr Barresi; Mrs Crosio; and Senator Hogg. In particular, I would like to thank Neil Bessell, who was the secretary of the delegation, and Jonathan Brown, who came from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade to assist us with our deliberations at the IPU. I commend the report to the House.18:17:0013122Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO7T4ProspectALP00—by leave—In speaking to the report on the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to Italy and the 102nd Inter-Parliamentary Conference in Berlin, I too would like to commend the secretary of the delegation, Neil Bessell, and Jonathan Brown. I would also like to say at the outset how much we, as a delegation, appreciated the briefings we received before we actually left Australia from people from the Department of Foreign Affairs, Treasury and the Parliamentary Library. The delegation also had administrative support from the various sections of the parliament, and the people we would sincerely like to thank are named in the report.One of the proudest moments when on a parliamentary delegation to Italy—a place I have visited on many occasions as a tourist, and one that I have certainly learnt to appreciate and love—was to actually find out at first-hand, when one sits down with parliamentarians, the close association that Australia as a nation has with Italy. That was certainly worth while. We are now assured that Italy is Australia's largest export market in the European Union, after the UK, and it is now our 13th largest worldwide. In 1998, as indicated in the report, we had something like $1.7 billion worth of trade with Italy. Of course, our imports from Italy at that time were worth $2.8 billion, and we have to continue to work to make sure that our exports surpass our imports.When one looks at the things that Italy is importing from Australia, they are wool, leather, coal and non-monetary gold, as well as cotton. Italy is also Australia's second largest market for wool exports and our largest market for fine wool. Italy now ranks 14th for Australian foreign investment—something I found very surprising. In fact, as indicated in the report before us, the 1998 figures show that something like $1.83 billion is invested in Italy by Australian companies.Of course, we now know that Australia has, after people of English-speaking origin, people of Italian origin as its next largest group. The 1996 census found that we had something like 238,246 people born in Italy. In the 12 months to May 1999, we also found that 22,000 visitors came from Italy to Australia but that 80,000 visitors had gone from Australia to Italy. One of the points I was remarking on in those figures, when I was reading our report as well as my own private notes, is that we have to continue to sell Australia to the Italians. We know that a lot people go home to visit family and friends; but we also have to make sure that they come back and visit Australia.I would also like to make reference to the reports which the deputy leader, the honourable member for Hindmarsh, referred to. I would say that it was very difficult, following the illness of our leader, for Senator McKiernan and the member for Hindmarsh to step in as they did, and I commend and congratulate them for it. It was not easy, because we had an arrangement in place whereby all of us thought we were going to speak on different aspects at the IPU Conference, as well as in the delegations after we met numerous heads of government. Of course, to step in as readily as they did and to carry forward Australia did Australia as well as the parliament proud, and we can rest assured that Australia was well represented; and I commend them both.I also say that it was a very enlightening trip, not only for what we covered with the Italian government but also for the IPU conference. There are a couple of things that I would also like to touch on from the visit to the Italian government, if I may—mainly because it does affect my area in particular and, I suppose, any area that has a large congregation of Italians. On 29 September, the Italian government actually passed a motion in the Italian Senate, ratifying a constitutional amendment creating a single overseas constituency, thereby enabling Italians abroad to vote in Italian elections.We know that a lot of steps have to be put in place for that, but it is going to be very interesting to see how that is going to be set up and established. One would start thinking about where loyalty lies when people who have come to Australia and have become Australian citizens are then going to have the right to start voting on decisions in another country—in this particular case, the country of their birth. I find it very difficult to accept that the people I deal with will then be saying, `We are going to take part in the decision making of our country,' when it is actually their country of birth and not the country they have chosen as their home and where they have chosen to take out citizenship. Because of this law that has now gone through the Senate and because of the steps that are now going to be taken to put it into place, they are going to be granted the right to vote for somebody else in another government in the country of their birth. It is going to be very extraordinary to see how that is going to be put into place, and it is something that I think we will all be watching.We also had the opportunity when we went into the parliament in Italy to see electronic voting, to see it in place and to see how the members vote. It is rather extraordinary to see how that is all put together. We had a very quick visit to Italy and I found it very fulfilling. However, my one criticism would be that we tried to do too much in too little time. We seemed to be running from one spot to another. You will see in our report that our delegation had to divide because we were running a bit late for one delegation and we did not want to offend another delegation. I can assure you though that both groups did it very well.At the IPU conference, Australia was absolutely pushed to the forefront of the 138 nations assembled there. Two of our people chaired committees and each of us took part in the deliberations and the debates. To those who read this report—and I know everyone in this parliament will—I refer you to the conclusions of the report. In chapter 6 we, as a delegation, say:The 102nd Inter-Parliamentary Union Conference in Berlin addressed matters of international significance, including humanitarian law and the need to reform global financial and monetary architecture as well as the rights of minorities and migrants.Further:The Delegation draws the attention of the Parliament to its contribution to the 102nd Inter-Parliamentary Conference held in Berlin . . . as evidenced in this report and recommends that Australia's commitment to the Inter-Parliamentary Union and its significant participation in its deliberations be maintained.I think it needs to be maintained and continued in the way in which it is. In my case, I found it daunting, and I am sure Mr Barresi will make a few remarks, when we assembled on the Monday for the official function, to see that the first speaker came out as `Australia, Crosio'. It was rather daunting to be the first one to speak. I remember my colleague saying, `I'm glad it's you; are you ready?' I said, `Whether I am ready or not, I am going up there.' It was quite extraordinary.Another thing I learned for future reference is that they do not have an efficient Hansard at the parliamentary conference. Consequently, you cannot get up there and talk and think you are going to get a speech later, which you can then distribute to other countries. There is no Hansard and, no, they cannot report what I have to say as quickly as I say it and nor do they have anything written out to distribute to other countries. I think I paved the way for other speakers to realise that if they are going to get up and speak they had better get up with well-prepared notes and a speech that they can readily provide. It was rather embarrassing for me to have those from Portugal or Indonesia come up and say, `Can we have a copy of your speech?' I realised I would have to sit down and try to think about what I had said. It was quite extraordinary, but we did put it together, and all of our other colleagues did as well.I can only say congratulations again to the leader and the deputy leader of the delegation. I found it a privilege and a pleasure to be nominated by this parliament, the Speaker and the President, to represent Australia. I hope I have occasions again on which I can make a contribution, as insignificant as it is. I feel I have gained from it and I believe I have tried to make an input. I commend the report to all members of the parliament.18:25:0013124Barresi, Phil, MPMr BARRESIZJ6DeakinLP10—by leave—It was a great pleasure to participate along with the other members of the delegation, firstly, to Italy, as a bilateral delegation and, secondly, to the IPU conference, which was my first opportunity to witness such an international forum in action. They tell me it is a model of how the United Nations works. To some extent it was gratifying to see so many nations come together and debate issues of importance but, to another extent, it also gave me some concern about the process which takes place. I will speak a little more about that later.At the outset, I want to thank the other delegation members, particularly Senator Jim McKiernan, who stepped in at the 11th hour due to the illness of Alex Somlyay, the member for Fairfax; Chris Gallus, the member for Hindmarsh, for her deputy leadership of the group; Senator John Hogg; and Janice Crosio. It was a good group. We got on very well over the two weeks. It was a group which I know has learned quite a lot on both trips.As one of only three members in this parliament of Italian background—along with Teresa Gambaro and Con Sciacca—it was a great privilege to represent the Australian parliament in the land of my birth and to visit Italy. I was able to visit parts of Italy which I have never had the opportunity to visit, particularly Florence, to see the culture, traditions and the industry in that part of Italy. The contribution they make is not only to the Italian economy but also to the world economy. We visited a textile manufacturer and textile machine manufacturer, and also the Frescobaldi wine and olive growing area. That family has been in the same industry for 700 years. Knowing they can trace their family back that far made us feel small when we looked at the fact that our nation is only 200 years old. It was certainly a great honour to be there.We also met with official committees from the Italian parliament, and it was gratifying that they gave up their time for us. As the member for Prospect said, the only drawback was the amount of time we had with each of the committees. For example, the meeting we had with the NATO group was shaping up to be of great interest and would have been highly productive except for the short amount of time that we had to speak to them. Similarly with their foreign affairs committee we were interrupted by those dastardly things called bells and divisions and they had to leave the meeting.The other highlight from my point of view was meeting the Italy-Australia Parliamentary Friendship Group. As the Chairman of the Australia-Italy Parliamentary Friendship Group, with the member for Prospect being the deputy chair, it was a privilege to meet our counterparts. Our friendship group is certainly large compared with theirs and I think they still have a way to go in terms of spreading the word about the benefits of being part of an Australia-Italy friendship group.The other issue I want to talk about is the trip to Berlin. It was the first IPU meeting that I had attended. It was a great privilege that Australia was able to chair two of the committees at the conference and that we had the speaking roles that we did. The only drawback of the Berlin experience, from my point of view, was the invidious position which Portugal put Australia in. They were not there to introduce their own motion about having a supplementary item on East Timor. Australia had to `carry the can' for Portugal in that regard and do the lobbying on behalf of Portugal.We did it with good faith in the position which Portugal had presented to us. Little did we know that, by the time the IPU conference had officially started, Portugal had circulated a memorandum which overly criticised the Indonesian position. It really made it difficult for us, but we honoured our commitment to Portugal and introduced it. We did as much as we could to ensure that it got up. The fact that it failed was a lesson for countries such as Portugal in how to lobby at such an international forum.My only concern about the IPU is the short time that was given to us to speak. The member for Prospect had the privilege of speaking first, and I think I might have had the privilege of speaking second or third last, so we had the two bookends of the conference covered. But the time that was given to us was far too short. If the IPU asked me, as an organisational development consultant, I could certainly help them to structure their sessions a little better.The other highlight was being able to meet, one on one, the delegates from Indonesia and also the delegates from Yugoslavia and speak about issues of concern to both nations. The fact that Senator Jim McKiernan and I were able to meet with the Indonesian delegation and the Indonesian Ambassador to Germany to discuss the East Timor issue was a credit to us. I know that some friendships were forged through that meeting.The meeting also highlighted to us just what a small player Australia really is in the world stage. A message came out very clearly from that meeting with the Indonesians in a comment that they made to us. After the Portuguese motion was defeated, they turned around and said, `It makes you realise just how many friends Indonesia has out there, and it is far better for us to have 100 friends than one enemy.' It was a very pointed comment, and we all understood its meaning.I will leave it at that. The member for Hindmarsh and the member for Prospect have spoken about the report itself. I will just simply end by thanking those who came with us to help us on the delegation. There was the delegation secretary, Neil Bessell, and what a professional individual Neil is. I congratulate him on the role he played in the delegation and also, more importantly, on the new job that he has now moved to in the Senate. I thank Jonathan Brown from Foreign Affairs for his wise advice and, finally, Phillip Stonehouse from the Australian Embassy in Italy. They are three excellent professionals whom we as members of parliament can be very proud of. I commend this report to the House and trust that other members will note its contents and put their hand up for the next IPU delegation.131261312618:33:0013126Nairn, Gary, MPMr NAIRNOK6Eden-MonaroLP10—by leave—I present the report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to Estonia and Sweden, 24 to 29 October 1999. I seek leave to make a short statement in connection with the report.Leave granted.OK6Nairn, Gary, MPMr NAIRN—It was certainly a great privilege to be on this particular delegation, from my point of view. First of all, it was the very first delegation that I have been on as a member of the parliament since I was elected in 1996. So it was a learning experience in that respect as well as because I had never been to that part of the world, particularly Estonia.The aims of the delegation to Estonia were to review the bilateral relationship and its potential for meeting Australia's trade interests, to develop links with the Estonian parliament and gain an appreciation of its role in national politics, to assess the country's political and economic development potential, and to gain an insight into Estonia's place in the region. The Swedish part of the trip was to renew and strengthen the links between the two parliaments and gain an appreciation of Sweden's parliamentary processes, to assess the bilateral relationship and the potential for furthering trade and investment relations and to gain an understanding of Sweden's role in the region, especially in relation to the Baltic states.Although the trip was very short, I think we achieved quite a lot with regard to those aims. I think all members of the delegation found the Estonian part of the trip absolutely fascinating. Here is a country that regained its independence in only 1991 and had its first elections after regaining its independence in only 1992. It has come a long way in that time. In the early part of the 1990s, after it regained its independence, it had inflation running at 1,000 per cent. It has moved very quickly in the seven years since it had its first elections—a real sort of free market economy has been set up there. Inflation is down below 10 per cent, it has had economic growth around 11 per cent at some time in the last two years and its unemployment rate now is running at just over three per cent. It is quite a remarkable achievement in that short period.They still have many things to do, and they also suffer, like so many countries seem to suffer these days, in that the city areas are doing quite well—the capital, Tallinn, where we spent our time in Estonia, is certainly going along very well—but we are not sure that the same can be said about some of the other parts of Estonia. It was a shame that the timing was such that we were not able to get out into some of those rural areas, which would have given us a greater insight into other aspects of the country. We all talked to the parliamentary committees in Estonia. We were really quite taken by how much they have achieved in a short period of time.Similarly, we spent quite a bit of time with the various committees of the Swedish parliament and saw how that parliament operated. I should say that both the Estonian and Swedish parliaments are very different from our parliaments: they do not have a Westminster system, they do not have an adversarial system of debate. I would describe it a little more school like, I suppose, in the way in which people are seated in the parliament, looking forward to the executive at the front. They have things like electronic voting as well in both the Estonian and Swedish parliaments.We were very privileged to have an audience with the President of Estonia, which I think we all very much enjoyed. He is a very knowledgeable man. He has been through a lot in his life, but he certainly has such a strong commitment to his country. We had an interesting debate about the republic with the President of Estonia, which was interesting because it was a week before the vote here in Australia on the republic. I think we all understood where the President of Estonia, without expressing his view, stood on that issue.DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—Hear, hear!OK6Nairn, Gary, MPMr NAIRN—You don't know. It was a surprising position. Let's just say he was a very conservative president but a remarkable man. We also had an audience with the King of Sweden. We had some great discussions with the various committees in the Swedish parliament, particularly in relation to drug policies, which was enlightening. We also took the opportunity to raise what we saw as Sweden's slight lack of involvement in the East Timor matter. The delegation was there to raise some of the issues and, as we would like to have seen additional assistance to what was provided by Sweden in relation to East Timor, it was timely to raise those matters. I think subsequent actions by Sweden, hopefully, will be such that the matters we raised were very relevant at the time.The delegation was made up of Senator Sue West, who led the delegation in her role as Deputy President of the Senate; Senator John Watson; Laurie Ferguson, the member for Reid; Mrs De-Anne Kelly, the member for Dawson; Senator Nick Sherry from Tasmania; and me. We worked extremely well together. It was a great group. One of the things I found very good was that a number of the members of the delegation had their spouses with them. Unfortunately mine could not be with me. But that provided a lot of additional assistance in particularly the social things that were done on the delegation. I think having that even broader cross-section of people provided by the spouses was beneficial to the overall delegation.The delegation secretary, Richard Selth, did an excellent job through the time of the delegation and everything was organised superbly in both countries. I think a lot of that had to do with the Ambassador for Sweden who looks after Estonia and other countries there, Steven Brady, and his First Secretary, Rick Nimmo, and the other staff of the embassy in Stockholm. They did an absolutely superb job for the whole week or so that we were there.I think the only criticism that all of us would agree with was that it was an extremely short time in which to visit two countries like that. Although it gave you a good snapshot, in future probably those sorts of delegations should have a little more time to flesh out some of the issues, particularly when you are dealing with the parliament and committees. I commend the report to the House and give the member for Reid an opportunity to make a few comments as well.18:41:0013127Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON8T4ReidALP00—by leave—I commence by reiterating some of the final remarks of the member for Eden-Monaro. Firstly, I compliment Ambassador Steven Brady, First Secretary Rick Nimmo and Andrea Gleeson from the embassy. They really were on top of the politics and the social problems of both countries we visited in a fashion that I have not always experienced overseas with our representatives. Richard Selth was extremely efficient but unobtrusive in regard to the management of this delegation.I think our visit to Estonia was interesting from two Australian perspectives: firstly, that the fourth largest diaspora of Estonians in the world after the United States, Canada and Sweden is actually Australia and, secondly, that Australia was very early in recognising Estonian independence at a time when that was very necessary to their situation.We discussed their EU negotiations, and the latest expectation, I understand, as the report indicates, is that they will be given entry by 2005. The most controversial aspect of their accession process is the situation of the Russian speaking minority. I think it was somewhat difficult for them to understand that questions might be asked in other countries about these human rights issues. I think they had a view that they had been long suppressed by the Soviet Union, that Russians had been favoured and given preference, and they found it somewhat difficult that in some cases Russian professionals could not speak Estonian. Therefore, they found it difficult to understand how we would query this issue—and I know I particularly did. So there are issues of citizenship. They put their point of view, but this was one of the areas which did engender some interest.They are obviously facing the depopulation of rural areas in a very real sense. Perhaps they do not quite appreciate that this is an international phenomenon, that it is not really traceable to the suppression they suffered under the Soviet Union. I guess one other aspect that became very clear to us was the question of housing in Estonia. They have a very difficult problem both in growing housing prices and a fairly dilapidated state of public housing from the previous Soviet period.I think we all found the situation in Sweden very interesting, as the previous speaker indicated, compared with the adversarial politics of this country. In Sweden there has to be cooperation in a greater sense. The Social Democrats at the moment very much resent their dependence upon the Left party and the Greens. That was very clear. But a fact of life is that they do not have a majority in the parliament, and this makes for cooperation. I think it was evident in the operation of their committees; it went beyond the needs of the day to become part of the culture.There was comment made about the policy with regard to drugs. Perhaps all members of the delegation were astounded by this more than any other aspect of our visit. Across the political spectrum, including the Left and the Green party, by Australian standards the attitude in Sweden to drugs is quite prohibitive. I think we went there with the view that their image with regard to sexual matters, et cetera, probably prevailed in other sectors. Their attitudes on alcohol dominate their thinking on drugs. We got the impression that this was a universal position in the country. As with their attitude on tobacco, alcohol, et cetera, they have a very hard position on drugs, and that was quite informative for the delegation.It was also commented on earlier that the delegation took up with Swedish parliamentarians the issue of Timor and indicated to them that Australia had a problem in this region that we were being portrayed by the Indonesians as in some manner orchestrating the action in Timor as a colonialist, white measure. We do need European support, we need international support. The delegation drove that home quite strongly as a group in its meetings with Swedish parliamentarians—that we do need support, not just financial but on all fronts with regard to the United Nations activity.Another question which was looked at when we were there was that of the increase of Nazi activity in Sweden. In the weeks that we were there a trade union official was shot dead over workplace issues. Interestingly enough, people perhaps sometimes advocate too strongly freedom of information. The reason he was shot dead was that Sweden has laws that allow any Tom, Dick and Harry to request pictures from people's passports. They requested this trade union official's passport photograph and then duly went around and shot him dead. We witnessed a parliamentary debate on this matter. I have to confess—this might be a personal view—that of all the speakers in the debate I was more attracted to the Christian Democrats than I was to anyone else. They were the most hardline about the need to bring in tougher measures with regard to combating Nazism.The final matter of interest to me was a meeting with immigration officials in Orebro county. Sweden does not allow the extent of legal appeals that this country does on immigration matters. It might be informative to quite a few people in Australia; that is the reality. We have this debate in Australia about whether we can actually encourage people to go to Tasmania and South Australia when they migrate to this country. Sweden has a program whereby settlement is to some degree in the hands of municipal authorities. They are paid the equivalent of $28,500 towards integrating people. This acts as a financial carrot in getting the municipality to be interested in absorbing people into their area, because of a fear that Stockholm and Gothenburg are attracting too high a proportion of migrants and they are stretching resources there in the same manner that we see in Melbourne and Sydney.They have another minor problem with migration and illegals. As I experienced in Denmark, there is a very tight labour market with great cooperation between employers, government and unions with regard to illegal migrants. That was another aspect of the delegation's visit.I commend the report and say that we worked very well as a group. I think we did accomplish the aims that the delegation set out to achieve in the beginning.Bills13129r91213129Consideration resumed from 6 December.Senate amendments—(1) Schedule 1, item 7, page 4 (line 12), at the end of the definition of employment matters , add: ; (g) arrangements for dealing with pregnant, or potentially pregnant employees and employees who are breastfeeding their children.(2) Schedule 1, item 8, page 4 (line 21), after "contribute to", insert ", and promote,".(3) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 25), after item 9, insert:9A Subsection 3(1) Insert: potentially pregnant has the meaning given by section 4B of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 .(4) Schedule 1, item 15, page 5 (after line 26), before subsection 8(1), insert: (1A) Before developing a workplace program, a relevant employer must: (a) confer responsibility for the development and implementation of the program (including a continuous review of the program) on a person or persons having sufficient authority and status within the management of the relevant employer to enable the person or per sons properly to develop and implement the program; and (b) consult with each trade union having members affected by the proposal for the development and implementation of the program; and (c) consult with employees of the relevant employer, particularly employees who are women.(5) Schedule 1, item 21, page 8 (lines 1 to 5), omit subsections 13A(2) and (3), substitute: (2) A relevant employer must prepare a public report in respect of the period of 12 months commencing on 1 April 2000 and after that, in respect of each consecutive period of 12 months.(6) Schedule 1, item 21, page 8 (line 20), at the end of subsection (1), add: ; but only if the relevant employer has complied with those requirements for a period of not less than 3 consecutive reporting periods, including a period of 3 reporting periods beginning before the commencement of this section.(7) Schedule 1, page 11 (after line 9), at the end of the Schedule, add:Part 3—Amendment of the Sex Discrimination Act 198428 Paragraph 3(b) Omit "or potential pregnancy", substitute ", potential pregnancy or breastfeeding".29 Subsection 4(1) (after paragraph (b) of the definition of Commonwealth employee ) Insert: (ba) holds a judicial office;30 Subsection 4(1) (at the end of the definition of Commonwealth employee ) Add: ; and includes a senator or member of the House of Representatives.31 Subsection 4(1) (at the end of the definition of employment ) Add: and (d) unpaid or voluntary work, including under a scheme established under a law of the Commonwealth.32 Subsection 4(1) Insert: judicial office means: (a) an office of Justice of the High Court; or (b) an office of judge of a court created by the Parliament or of a court of a Territory.33 After section 7 Insert:7AA Discrimination on the ground of breastfeeding (1) For the purposes of this Act, a person (the discriminator ) discriminates against a woman (the aggrieved woman ) on the ground that the aggrieved woman is breastfeeding her child if, because the aggrieved woman is breastfeeding her child, the discriminator treats the aggrieved woman less favourably than, in circumstances that are the same or are not materially different, the discriminator treats or would treat someone who is not breastfeeding her child. (2) For the purposes of this Act, a person (the discriminator ) discriminates against a woman (the aggrieved woman ) on the ground that the aggrieved woman is breastfeeding the child if the discrimination imposes, or proposes to impose, a condition, requirement or practice that has, or is likely to have, the effect of disadvantaging women who are also breastfeeding their children. (3) This section has effect subject to sections 7B and 7D.34 Subsection 10(2) Omit "or potential pregnancy", substitute ", potential pregnancy or breastfeeding".35 Subsection 11(2) Omit "or potential pregnancy", substitute ", potential pregnancy or breastfeeding".36 Subsection 13(1) Repeal the subsection.37 Subsection 14(1) After "potential pregnancy", insert "or because the person is breastfeeding her child".38 Subsection 14(2) After "potential pregnancy", insert "or because the employee is breastfeeding her child".39 Subsection 15(1) After "potential pregnancy", insert "or because the person is breastfeeding her child".40 Subsection 15(2) After "potential pregnancy", insert "or because the commission agent is breastfeeding her child". 41 Section 16 After "potential pregnancy", insert "or because the contract worker is breastfeeding her child".42 Subsections 17(1) and (2) After "potential pregnancy" (wherever occurring), insert "or because the person is breastfeeding her child".43 Subsection 17(3) After "potential pregnancy", insert "or because the partner is breastfeeding her child".44 Section 18 After "potential pregnancy", insert "or because the person is breastfeeding her child".45 Subsection 19(1) After "potential pregnancy", insert "or because the person is breastfeeding her child".46 Subsection 19(2) After "potential pregnancy", insert "or because the member is breastfeeding her child".47 Section 20 After "potential pregnancy", insert "or because the person is breastfeeding her child".48 Subsection 21(1) After "potential pregnancy", insert "or because the person is breastfeeding her child".49 Subsection 21(2) After "potential pregnancy", insert "or because the student is breastfeeding her child".50 Subsection 22(1) After "potential pregnancy", insert "or because that other person is breastfeeding her child".51 Subsections 23(1) and (2) After "potential pregnancy" (wherever occurring), insert "or because that other person is breastfeeding her child".52 Subsection 24(1) After "potential pregnancy", insert "or because that other person is breastfeeding her child".53 Subsection 25(1) After "potential pregnancy", insert "or because the person is breastfeeding her child".54 Subsection 25(2) After "potential pregnancy", insert "or because the member is breastfeeding her child".55 Section 26 After "potential pregnancy", insert "or because that other person is breastfeeding her child". 56 Subsection 27(1) After "potential pregnancy", insert "or because that other person is breastfeeding her child".57 Subsection 27(1) Omit "or potentially pregnant", substitute ", potentially pregnant or breastfeeding".58 After subsection 27(2) Insert: (2A) To avoid doubt, it is unlawful for a person to ask another person a question (whether orally or in writing) in connection with the employment or potential employment of that other person, which might reasonably be understood as intended to elicit information about that person's intentions in relation to pregnancy or in relation to meeting that person's family commitments.59 At the end of subsection 27(2) Add: ; but it is unlawful to discriminate in a recruitment process on the basis of that information.60 After section 27 Insert:27A Pregnancy equity standards (1) The Minister may formulate standards, to be known as pregnancy equity standards, in relation to the employment of women who are pregnant or potentially pregnant. (2) Pregnancy equity standards formulated in accordance with this section are to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the pregnancy equity standards are formulated and take effect only as provided by the following provisions of this section. (3) If: (a) notice of a motion to amend the pregnancy equity standards is given in either House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days after the pregnancy equity standards have been laid before that House; and (b) the pregnancy equity standards, whether or not as amended, are subsequently approved by that House; and (c) the other House approves the pregnancy equity standards in the form approved by the first-mentioned House; the pregnancy equity standards take effect in the form so approved from the day on which that other House approves the pregnancy equity standards in that form. (4) If no notice of a motion to amend the pregnancy equity standards is given in the House of Representatives or the Senate within 15 sitting days of the particular House after the pregnancy equity standards have been laid before that House, the pregnancy equity standards take effect from the day immediately after that 15th sitting day or, where that day differs in respect of each House, the later of those days.27B Unlawful to contravene pregnancy equity standards It is unlawful for a person to contravene a pregnancy equity standard.27C Division 4 not to apply to pregnancy equity standards Division 4 does not apply in relation to a pregnancy equity standard.27D This Part not to apply if person acts in accordance with pregnancy equity standards If a person acts in accordance with a pregnancy equity standard this Part does not apply to the person's act.61 Subsections 38(1) and (2) Omit ", marital status or pregnancy" (wherever occurring), substitute "or marital status".62 Subsection 38(3) Omit "or pregnancy".63 At the end of section 38 Add: (4) In this section, a reference to a person's sex or marital status does not include a reference to pregnancy or potential pregnancy.64 Section 39 After "pregnancy", insert "or because the person is breastfeeding her child".Part 4—Amendment of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 198665 At the end of subsection 46P(2) Add: ; or (d) if the complaint is about an advertisement in connection with an arrangement under paragraph 14(1)(a) of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 —by any person.66 After paragraph 46PO4(d) Insert: (da) where the unlawful discrimination relates to pregnancy or potential pregnancy—an order requiring a respondent to pay to an applicant exemplary or punitive damages;67 After subsection 46PW(6) Insert: (6A) The Sex Discrimination Commissioner may refer an award to the Australian Industrial Relations Commission without a complaint having been lodged with the Commission if the Sex Discrimination Commissioner is of the opinion that the award is discriminatory.68 Section 48 Omit "or potential pregnancy" (wherever occurring), substitute "potential pregnancy or breastfeeding".18:49:0013132Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I indicate to the House that the government proposes that amendments Nos 1, 3 and 5 be agreed to, that amendments Nos 2 and 7 be disagreed to, and that amendments Nos 4 and 6 be disagreed to, but that amendments be made in place thereof. I suggest therefore that it may suit the convenience of the House to first consider amendments Nos 1, 3 and 5, then consider amendments Nos 2 and 7 and, when those amendments have been disposed of, to consider amendments Nos 4 and 6. I move:That Senate amendments Nos (1), (3) and (5) be agreed to.It would be appropriate for me to put this matter into context for the convenience of the House. The government and the opposition have come to an agreement for the handling of this particular piece of legislation, and the proposals which I am now putting are the subject of that agreement. This legislation has been before the Senate. The Senate has made various amendments and discussions have now been held between the member for Jagajaga and I, and this agreement has been reached.The Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Amendment Bill 1999 provides benefits for women. It provides benefits for employers to encourage them to take a constructive attitude to providing equal opportunities for women in the workplace. By ensuring less emphasis on process under the legislation, we are providing the agency with increased scope within their limited resources to promote educational and other campaigns and work which will encourage employers to adopt constructive approaches to these issues.I believe the government has clearly demonstrated its commitment to equal opportunity for women in Australian workplaces by giving the progress of this bill high priority. Part of our agreement with the opposition is to try to facilitate the passage of this legislation before the end of the year. We are hopeful that, by dealing with this matter in a timely way today, the Senate will see its way clear to do so tomorrow, and this will give the agency a clear set of terms of reference, as it were, under the legislation to proceed with its work in the new year.The bill does change the name of the Affirmative Action Agency to the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Agency. It removes most of the express references to prescriptive steps which employers must currently take in developing a program for equal opportunity for women in the workplace. We have deleted a number of steps in the process that is currently required of employers. We have reduced the number from eight to three steps. I think that is a sensible movement in the right direction.The bill simplifies and streamlines the reporting process, resulting in more flexible and outcomes oriented forms. It introduces a revised waiving provision, providing an objective standard for employers to achieve in order to have the reporting requirement waived. It emphasises outcomes rather than processes—and this is quite an important theme in this legislation—flowing out of the independent report by a review committee, which was keen to ensure that in all that we do in this area we encourage better outcomes rather than being focused entirely on process. It formally recognises pregnancy and breastfeeding as significant issues for working women, and it further facilitates the educative and assistance role of the agency.We have accepted some of the opposition's amendments to ensure the bill's passage. In agreeing to these opposition amendments, the government has put women's interests first. The original bill was a sound and balanced piece of legislation, and the agreed amendments do not alter the government's fundamental aims with respect to women in the workplace. I believe we can fairly say that we have stood by our commitment to furthering equal opportunity for women by ensuring that the new act will be in place in the new year. All in all, whilst we have not obtained all that we wanted, I believe that this bill in its amended form is still an advance, and it sets the agency on a new course. I think this will be a benefit to women and to employers and therefore is worthy of the parliament's support.Senate amendments Nos 1, 3 and 5 simply provide for arrangements for pregnant or potentially pregnant employers and employees who are breastfeeding their children to be added to the definition of employment matters. In return for that, the opposition is not proceeding with amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act, although obviously they are matters that it will pursue in a different forum in the new year. The bill does require employers to take these matters into account in their reports, and amendment No. 3 provides a definition from the Sex Discrimination Act.Amendment No. 5 reintroduces or maintains annual reporting. (Extension of time granted) The annual reporting is basically reinstated by this amendment. We are supporting it as a means of achieving the passage of the legislation. I am disappointed that we are maintaining annual reporting. We believed that it was more sensible to move to biennial reporting. It was recommended to us by an independent committee that reviewed this matter very thoroughly. The Affirmative Action Agency director has written to the opposition, and she expressed it this way:I believe the proposed new legislation, in particular the move to biennial reporting, with an outcomes focus and the name change, is a pragmatic shift that will achieve improved outcomes for the agency, Australian employers and most importantly Australian women in the workplace. My views have been reinforced over the past five weeks at 24 national roundtables, where I have met with over 450 representatives from women's groups, unions and employers. After 13 years of affirmative action legislation, there is now a willingness on the part of Australian employers for the recognition that they need to do more to provide inclusive workplaces for women as well as men. Our critical role at the agency at this time is to be an educator rather than a bureaucratic policing agency, which was appropriate in the early days. We now have a window of opportunity with employers on board to move forward to deliver real outcomes for Australian working women.The shadow minister obviously has a different point of view. I think the differences here really settle on our emphasis on achieving outcomes, whereas the opposition is more focused, in my view, on process. That is a matter for her to describe.We are trying to reduce paperwork. We do not want this issue to be an irritant for employers. We want it to be an opportunity for employers to take a more constructive approach. If annual reporting had been replaced by biennial reporting, which we proposed, we think it would have struck a better balance and reduced paperwork. In keeping with the other flexibilities that are retained in the legislation, we think that we would have got a better outcome. It would have been better for women and would have therefore moved us closer to our objective. However, that is not to be and, from my point of view, it is better to have something than to have nothing. Therefore, we have accepted that Senate amendment. I table the supplementary explanatory memorandum.18:58:0013133Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—As I indicated in the second reading debate on the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Amendment Bill 1999 back in October, Labor did intend to amend the bill when it got to the Senate, to make sure that the powers of the Affirmative Action Agency were not watered down by this bill. At that time, I outlined the substance of the amendments that we would move in the Senate. The amendments that we did move fall into two categories: those that strengthen the compliance and reporting procedures that are contained in this bill, and those that sought to amend the Sex Discrimination Act to implement 11 of the 46 recommendations contained in the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission's report Pregnant and productive . I am pleased to say that all of these amendments were successful in the Senate. I think it demonstrates wide support for equal opportunity for women in the workplace and wide support for the recommendations arising out of the human rights report Pregnant and productive. I am pleased that the government has agreed, with slight variation, to the opposition's amendments to the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Amendment Bill 1999 . I am also very pleased that the government has also indicated that it will implement the recommendations of the Pregnant and productive report early in the new year. I am particularly pleased that the government, in accepting one of the opposition amendments that we are debating right now—the extension of the definition of employment matters—indicates its good faith in that regard.Our first amendment extends the government's definition of employment matters to include those matters dealing with women who are pregnant or women who may become pregnant in the future and women who are breastfeeding in the workplace. The Pregnant and productive report highlighted the extraordinary treatment being endured by many women in the workplace who are trying to balance paid work and motherhood. Just as we have sexual harassment included in the government's definition of employment matters, we took the view that issues surrounding pregnancy should also be included. So I am very pleased that the government is supporting the extension of the definition of employment matters. We support the government putting the definition of employment matters into this bill. I do take it as an indication of the government's good faith that it will implement the HREOC report entitled Pregnant and productive early in the new year.The next amendments are about the consultation arrangements in the bill. Once again, I am pleased that the government—with some minor changes—are agreeing to these amendments, which will guarantee that employees and their representatives are consulted in the development of equal opportunity workplace plans and, also, that responsibility for imple menting these equal opportunity plans will remain with a senior person in the company. Labor's amendments do ensure that this consultation occurs during the development of the workplace program.It was pleasing to see that in the minister's review—which he mentioned in his remarks—the role that unions could play as employee representatives was noted. As they said in that report, `unionised workplaces have better equity performance than non-unionised workplaces'. I am pleased that the minister has agreed to ensure that consultation with all employees and their nominated representatives, particularly women, is central to the development of these equal opportunity plans and their implementation. The bill, as originally drafted, would have watered down these consultational requirements, and we may have seen some employers developing equal opportunity plans in isolation from the women workers affected in those workplaces.In another of the Labor amendments which I am pleased the government is agreeing to, we seek to make sure that there is an annual reporting requirement for companies with over 100 employees. We were concerned that the government's original bill watered down the employer's reporting requirements by moving to biennial rather than annual equal opportunity reports. (Extension of time granted) We are opposed to such a change, and I am pleased that the minister has indicated the government will agree to the amendments which we moved in the Senate and support the maintenance of the annual reporting requirement. Unlike the minister, I do not see this as putting process over outcomes. Of course we want to see the outcome—primarily, equal opportunity for women in the workplace—secured, but equal opportunity for women is not a second order issue and should get annual attention just like everything else. Companies have to report annually on all of their other business activities, and equal opportunity should not be any different in that regard.The government also sought to change the waiver requirements in the original act so that an employer would not have to have complied with the act for three years prior to getting a waiver for reporting requirements. Labor's amendments in the Senate restored the requirement set out in the original act that the reporting requirements could be waivered only if the employer had complied for the three years previously. If the objectives of this act are to be achieved—and I agree with the minister that the objective is to achieve equal opportunity for women—employers must be made to demonstrate that they are able to comply at least for a minimum of three years. Once again, I am pleased that the government has agreed to this amendment.I want to make some comments about the Pregnant and productive report in summing up. I am pleased that Labor has secured a commitment from the government to respond to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission's report entitled Pregnant and productive: it's a right not a privilege to work while pregnant, and the government has indicated that they will do that early next year. The minister's letter to me outlining his proposed variations to the amended bill, which we are now debating, also includes an undertaking from him that the government expects to progress issues arising from the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission report entitled Pregnant and productive early in the year 2000.As I have indicated to him, so as not to hold up the progress of this bill on equal opportunity, Labor will withdraw the amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act that we were pursuing with this bill, which would have implemented 11 of the Pregnant and productive report's 46 recommendations. I am pleased that the government will respond in a comprehensive manner to this report. I look forward to the government introducing a package of measures, including Labor's amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act, into the parliament early in the new year.A priority, from my point of view, in the government's response outside of the amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act must be the development of a national education campaign that informs employees of their rights and makes sure that workplaces are free of discrimination against women who are pregnant or who may become pregnant in the future. Without Labor's championing of this report, Pregnant and productive, it would still, unfortunately, be collecting dust on various ministerial bookshelves, as it has been for the last five months. I am disappointed that the government have not been ready to respond to this report in the context of this bill. Nevertheless, I take their commitment to respond to it early in the new year in good faith. The amended bill before us is certainly an improvement on the bill originally introduced and, on that basis, we are happy to support its speedy passage.19:07:0013135Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—May I, with your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, make a couple of comments on these issues, and then I think the balance of the technical amendments or processes can be proceeded with. In respect of consultation, there was a requirement under the existing legislation that there be consultation with unions that had members in the relevant workplace. We have made a change to that—I think it improves the existing provisions—to allow for consultation with the nominated representatives of the employee. The effect is that, if people are union members and they wish to have their union consulted, that is a matter for the employee. It is important change inasmuch as it is a matter for the employee to decide and it is their nominated representative. It may be a union or it may be somebody else. We think that is a fair change.In respect of the HREOC report, the shadow minister did say twice that we had committed to implement the report. I understand her strong support for the report's recommendations. We have had a discussion about this and our discussion has culminated in these words in our agreement.Ms Macklin interjecting—WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—You did, but you said twice that we had agreed to implement the report. As I say, I appreciate your enthusiasm for the report, but the actual position is that this agreement is also subject to my indication that the government expects to progress issues arising from the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission report, Pregnant and productive , early in the year 2000. That is what I have said, and we of course stand by that. The Labor Party had wished to attach various amendments to this legislation in response to that report. We did not think that was an appropriate way of dealing with the HREOC report. Instead, the government intends to deal with that on a whole of government basis. We will progress issues on that basis rather than in a piecemeal fashion by tacking amendments onto this particular legislation, so I am pleased that the opposition has not proceeded with those amendments. This allows the bill to be proceeded with on a stand-alone basis, which is how it ought to be treated.Question resolved in the affirmative.19:10:0013136Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I move:That Senate amendments Nos (2) and (7) be disagreed to.Amendment No. (2) amends the definition of an `equal opportunity for women in workplace program' so that a program will be required to be designed to ensure that employers not only contribute to but also promote the achievement of equal opportunity for women. This amendment is unnecessary for the following reasons. The provision in the bill requiring programs to contribute to the achievement of equal opportunity is broad enough to encompass both substantive measures and promotional activities. Indeed, the achievement of equal opportunity would, in most cases, require employers to undertake promotional activities of some kind. Promotion in the broader context is provided for in the proposed principal objects of the act, which will include that the act promote the principle that employment for women should be dealt with on the basis of merit and that the act promote the elimination of discrimination and the provision of equal opportunity for women. Accordingly, we do not accept this amendment.Amendment No. (7) introduces a range of amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986. These amendments form a package intended to implement a number of the recommendations of the HREOC pregnancy and work inquiry report, Pregnant and productive. Discrimination against pregnant or potentially pregnant employees is a matter of great concern. The Attorney-General asked HREOC to undertake the national pregnancy in work inquiry and the report from that inquiry is a comprehensive document setting out a large number of recommendations. Many of these recommendations are complex and so require careful and coordinated consideration. The amendments proposed by this Senate amendment should be considered together with the recommendations of that report. The government is in the process of considering the report and formulating a response which will deal comprehensively with the recommendations made. Accordingly, we do not accept the amendment.19:12:0013136Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—As I outlined earlier, we will agree with the government's position. I am pleased that the government is looking favourably on the Pregnant and productive report. I want to indicate the importance of the amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act which were part of these Senate amendments. Certainly we look forward to the government bringing these back. I indicate that if there is any delay in this regard I will certainly be seeking other ways to introduce these amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act.The reason we took the opportunity that we did to move these amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act with this Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Amendment Bill 1999 was to move things along. The government has had this report for some five months now and we were very concerned that there had not been any action. It is important that we see these amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act come to fruition to make sure that the act includes breastfeeding as a ground for unlawful discrimination; removes the exemption of employment by an instrumentality of a state; removes the exemption for educational institutions established for religious purposes in relation to pregnancy and potential pregnancy; enables the awarding of punitive damages as well as compensatory damages; allows a person not directly affected by an advertisement to make a complaint about a discriminatory advertisement; clarifies that, while it is not unlawful to require a pregnant women to provide medical information concerning pregnancy, it is unlawful to discriminate in medical examinations of pregnant women during recruitment processes; prohibits the asking of questions which might be reasonably understood as intending to elicit information about pregnancy; makes sure that unpaid workers are covered; clarifies the coverage of federal statutory authorities, judicial office holders and members of parliament; empowers the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission to publish enforceable standards in relation to pregnancy and potential pregnancy in the workplace; and, finally, allows referrals by the Sex Discrimination Commissioner to the Industrial Relations Commission of discriminatory awards or agreements without the need for a written complaint.As I said, I look forward to seeing those amendments brought back into the parliament as part of the government's comprehensive response to the report Pregnant and productive and hope that is as soon as possible in the new year.19:16:0013137Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I want only to make one point. The shadow minister has said that we have given a commitment to favourably consider the report. I do not want there to be any misunderstanding about this. As I think she does appreciate, our position is that this report will be dealt with by the government on a whole of government approach. As to our disposition to it, the government has not yet formed a view. The Attorney-General obviously will state the government's position in due course. The commitment that we have given is that we expect to progress issues early in the year 2000. But we believe that the report should be looked at properly on a comprehensive basis, and that will be done. As to the view that we form, that will be announced in due course.Question resolved in the affirmative.19:17:0013137Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I present the reasons for the House disagreeing to Senate amendments Nos 2 and 7, and I move:That the reasons be adopted.Question resolved in the affirmative.19:17:0013137Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I move:That amendments Nos (4) and (6) be disagreed to but that in place thereof respectively government amendments Nos (1) and (2) be made:(1) Schedule 1, item 15, page 5 (after line 26), to before subsection (1), insert: (1A) Before developing a workplace program, a relevant employer must: (a) confer responsibility for the development and implementation of the program (including continuous review of the program) on a person or persons having sufficient authority and status within the management of the relevant employer to enable the person or persons properly to develop and implement the program; and (b) consult with employees (or their nominated representatives) of the relevant employer, particularly employees who are women.(2) Schedule 1, item 21, page 8 (line 20), omit paragraph (1)(b), substitute: (b) on its own initiative; but only if the relevant employer has complied with those requirements for a period of not less than 3 consecutive reporting years, including a period of 3 reporting years beginning before the commencement of this section.The government sees amendment No. 1 as formalising some of the requirements on employers in relation to the development of a workplace program. The amendment would expressly require the employer to confer responsibility on a person within the organisation for the development and implementation of the program. The person within the organisation would have to have sufficient authority and status to properly develop a program and also be responsible for its continuous review. The amendment would also make express the requirement for the employer to consult with employees or the nominated representatives of employees, particularly employees who are women, before developing a workplace program.Both of these amendments are effectively putting back that which was there already. It is really the status quo, although, as I have mentioned, there is a change to the consultation requirements. I think that has improved those consultation provisions. In respect of requiring the employer to confer responsibility on a person within the organisation, that is what happens now, so we are back to the status quo. This is one of the processes which the Labor Party was keen to have back in the system. We have been trying to get away from process and get to outcomes. But, for securing the passage of the bill, we have agreed to maintain the status quo on that matter.My basic view is that the corporate entities should be responsible. It should not be just shunted off to one person. There should be a collective—this should appeal to you—responsibility for these matters, and the buck should stop at the person who is running the organisation. Anyway, in the scheme of things, we think it is better to progress the bill than be stuck on that.Amendment No. 2 provides a limitation on the granting of waivers by the agency. The agency will still be able to issue a waiver on the application of the employer or of its own initiative but only if the employer has complied with the reporting requirements set out in sections 13, 13A and 13B for at least three consecutive reporting years. The government has confidence that the agency would have applied the test for waiver rigorously. Even without this amendment, the waiver test requires the agency to be satisfied that the employer has taken all reasonably practicable measures to address the issues relating to employment matters that affect equal opportunity for women in the workplace. While the government has every confidence that the waiver provision it introduced would have been applied appropriately by the agency, the government is prepared to agree to the introduction of a further objective criteria.The government notes that the three consecutive reporting years may have accrued in full or in part before the commencement of these amendments. In addition, the three consecutive reporting years may also accrue from compliance occurring after the commencement of the section.19:20:0013138Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—The first government amendment relates to the consultation requirements in the workplace plans. I am pleased that the government has seen fit to move these amendments which make some minor changes to the original Labor amendments. As I said in my earlier remarks, I think it is very important that we do have all employees—particularly those women who will be affected by workplace plans—involved and participating and, where people want it to be the case, with their employee representatives also being involved.Unlike the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, I think we do have a very long way to go when it comes to equal opportunity for women in the workplace. Unfortunately it is still not the case that women have equal opportunity. So we were very concerned to make sure that the responsibility for the development and implementation of these workplace plans did remain the explicit responsibility of a senior person in the company concerned. So, once again, I am pleased that the government has agreed to reinsert this section in the bill which, as the minister has said, takes it back to the way things were in the past. We still have a very long way to go in this regard, and we certainly want to make sure that responsibility for this issue is at the highest level possible.As far as the government's second amendment is concerned, unfortunately it is the case that some companies that do secure waivers then fall down when it comes to making sure that equal opportunity for women is pursued in their workplaces. We certainly did not want to see any watering down of the waiver arrangements. I am very pleased once again that the government will require that the original waiver provisions that exist in the acts continue to apply.19:23:0013138Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I think this essentially brings matters to a conclusion. I appreciate the fact that we have been able to come to an agreement with the Labor Party on this issue. In the last few weeks I have been suffering from a campaign of `just say no' on other workplace relations matters. This to me just demonstrates that it is more sensible for people to talk and try to find some way of actually progressing issues. I appreciate the fact that, not for the first time this year, an agreement has been able to be reached with the Labor Party. I hope, Jenny, that you have secured the support of your backbench; otherwise they will be complaining about youth wages and capital gains tax.PG6MACKLINMs Macklin—Don't ruin your good efforts so far.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—Thank you very much for describing this as a good effort. I will not refer to Mr Beazley's remarks this morning but will leave that for a press release later this evening.I sincerely thank the shadow minister, the member for Jagajaga. She has dealt with the issue on its merits. A lot of people have been associated with trying to make changes to this agency. Whilst, as I said, not all that we wanted has been achieved, I think it is a genuine step forward for the agency and I hope that women are the beneficiaries of a better system.Question resolved in the affirmative.19:24:0013139Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I move:That in the message returning the bill to the Senate, the Senate be requested to reconsider the bill in respect of the amendments made by the House of Representatives to the bill.I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills13139r64613139Consideration resumed from 6 December.Senate's amendments—(1) Page 2 (after line 4), after clause 2, insert: 2A The objects of this Act (1) The objects of this Act are as follows: (a) to ensure that Regional Forest Agreements between the Commonwealth and the States are consistent with the National Forest Policy Statement 1992; and (b) to establish a Wood and Paper Industry Council. (2) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(a), a Regional Forest Agreement is consistent with the National Forest Policy Statement 1992 if it: (a) provides for: (i) the development of internationally competitive and ecologically sustainable wood production and wood product industries, maximising value-adding opportunities and efficient use of wood resources; and (ii) the management of Australia's forests in an ecologically sustainable manner for a range of uses that includes tourism, recreation and the production of non-wood products; and (iii) the maintenance of an extensive and permanent forest estate in Australia; and (iv) the protection of nature conservation values in forests; and (v) conservation of the full range of values that forests can provide for current and future generations, including biological diversity and heritage, indigenous and other cultural values; and (vi) the protection of catchment values to ensure the availability of reliable high quality water supplies from forested areas; and (vii) the expansion of employment opportunities and the skills base of people working in the forested industries; and (b) ensures that Australia fulfils its obligations under relevant international agreements; and (c) applies the precautionary principle within the meaning of section 3.5.1 of the Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment (a copy of which is set out in the Schedule to the National Environment Protection Council Act 1994 ); and (d) fosters community understanding of and support for ecologically sustainable forest management; and (e) provides opportunities for public participation in decision-making.(2) Clause 3, page 2 (after line 24), before paragraph (a) of the definition of RFA or Regional Forest Agreement , insert: (aa) the agreement has regard to the objects of this Act;(3) Clause 3, page 2 (line 25), omit "was entered into having", substitute "has".(4) Clause 3, page 3 (after line 8), after paragraph (c) of the definition of RFA or Regional Forest Agreement , insert: (ca) if the agreement is made after 1 March 1999, it was made in accordance with the public and parliamentary scrutiny provisions of this Act;(5) Clause 3, page 3 (after line 10), after paragraph (d) of the definition of RFA or Regional Forest Agreement , insert: (da) the agreement provides for structural adjustment packages, including relocation and retraining for affected workers and their families;(6) Page 3 (after line 30), after clause 4, insert:4A Public scrutiny of draft RFAs Within 21 days of receiving agreement from a State or Territory to the text of a draft RFA, the Minister, after consulting with the Minister for the Environment, must publish in the Gazette : (a) a statement as to whether the draft RFA is in accordance with this Act; and (b) a notice of the Minister's intention to enter into the RFA; and (c) a copy of the draft RFA.4B Parliamentary scrutiny of draft RFAs (1) The Minister must not enter into an RFA on behalf of the Commonwealth except in accordance with this section. (2) Before entering into an RFA on behalf of the Commonwealth, the Minister must cause a copy of the proposed RFA to be tabled in each House of the Parliament. (3) Either House of the Parliament, within 15 sitting days of that House after the proposed RFA has been tabled, may, under motion upon notice, pass a resolution disapproving of the proposed RFA. (4) Where: (a) a notice referred to in subsection (3) is given with respect to a proposed RFA; and (b) at the expiration of the period during which a resolution disapproving of the proposed RFA could have been passed: (i) the notice has not been withdrawn and the relevant motion has not been called on; or (ii) the relevant motion has been called on, moved and seconded and has not been withdrawn or otherwise disposed of; the proposed RFA is deemed to have been disapproved of. (5) If: (a) either House of the Parliament passes a resolution in accordance with subsection (3); or (b) the proposed RFA is deemed to have been disapproved of under subsection (4); the Minister must not enter into the proposed RFA on behalf of the Commonwealth except in accordance with subsection (7). (6) If: (a) neither House of the Parliament passes a resolution in accordance with subsection (3); and (b) the proposed RFA is not deemed to have been disapproved of under subsection (4); the Minister may enter into the RFA on behalf of the Commonwealth on or after the day immediately following the last day on which a resolution disapproving of the proposed RFA could have been passed. (7) If an RFA has been disapproved of under subsection (3) or (4), the Minister may resubmit the RFA under subsection (2) provided that a period of not less than 15 sitting days has elapsed since the day on which: (a) a resolution disapproving of the RFA was passed by a House of the Parliament; or (b) the RFA was deemed to have been disapproved of. (8) An RFA which is resubmitted under subsection (7) may be resubmitted in an amended form. (9) Proposed amendments to an RFA are subject to section 4A and this section. A reference in these sections to a proposed RFA includes a reference to proposed amendments to an RFA.(7) Page 3 (after line 30), after clause 4, insert:4C Minister to establish forest database The Minister must cause to be established a comprehensive and publicly available national forest database to ensure that decision-making and management of long-term timber supplies are based on the best available information.(8) Clause 5, page 4 (line 20), at the end of paragraph (d), add ", except in so far as it applies to: (i) a property included in the World Heritage List; or (ii) a wetland included in the List of Wetlands of International Importance kept under the Ramsar Convention; or (iii) forestry operations that are incidental to another action whose primary purpose does not relate to forestry.".(9) Page 4 (after line 27), after clause 6, insert:6A Amendment of RFAs Nothing in this Act is to be taken to prevent the amendment of an RFA by the parties to an RFA where the parties agree that the circumstances are such as to warrant amendment of the RFA and where they have consulted interested stakeholders about the amendment.(10) Heading to clause 7, page 4 (line 28), after "breach ", insert ", amendment or termination ".(11) Clause 7, page 4 (line 29), after "compensation", insert "in relation to actual losses arising from the loss of legally exercisable rights".(12) Clause 7, page 5 (line 1), after "RFA", insert "for a breach, amendment or termination of an RFA".(13) Clause 7, page 5 (after line 8), after subclause (2), insert: (2A) The Commonwealth is not liable to pay compensation except in accordance with subsection (1) or (2).(14) Clause 8, page 5 (line 19), at the end of subclause (1), add: ; and (c) incorporating the full text of the RFA.(15) Clause 8, page 5 (after line 24), at the end of the clause, add: (3) In this section: RFA includes an amendment to an existing RFA. Senate's additional amendment—(1) Omit all words after "at the end of the Bill, add:", substitute:9 The Wood and Paper Industry Council The Wood and Paper Industry Council is established.10 Objectives The Council, in the performance of its functions, must pursue the objectives of enhancing: (a) the development of Australia's forest and forest product industries; and (b) employment opportunities in Australia's forest and forest product industries; and (c) the downstream processing and value-adding of forest products; and (d) the international competitiveness of the forest and forest product industries; and (e) the principles of ecologically sustainable development of forest industries.11 Functions of Council (1) The functions of the Council are: (a) to investigate market and import replacement opportunities for the industry and make recommendations to the Minister about pursuing such opportunities; and (b) to inquire into, and to report to the Minister on, matters referred to it by the Minister in relation to the industry; and (c) to develop, and to submit to the Minister, recommendations, guidelines and plans for measures consistent with the principles of ecologically sustainable development designed to safeguard or further the interests of the industry; and (d) to consult, and cooperate, with other persons and organisations in matters affecting the industry; and (e) to periodically inquire into, and to report to the Minister on, policies and procedures governing the export of unprocessed wood; and (f) to establish subcommittees and working parties in a manner consistent with the objectives of the Council; and (g) such other functions (if any) as are conferred upon the Council by the regulations. (2) Without limiting the generality of subsection (1), the Council, in the performance of its functions, may take into account any matter raised at an industry conference convened under section 13.12 Powers of Council The Council has power to do all things that are necessary or convenient to be done for, or in connection with, the performance of its functions.13 Industry conferences (1) The Chairperson may, from time to time as he or she considers appropriate, and after consultation with the Deputy Chairperson, convene conferences of persons concerned with the industry. (2) The Chairperson must convene a conference under subsection (1) whenever he or she is directed to do so by the Council. (3) The purpose of convening a conference is: (a) to assist the Council in identifying matters of concern to the industry; and (b) to promote a better understanding of problems within the industry; and (c) to foster a consensus on policies to be instituted to safeguard the interests of the industry; and (d) to increase markets, downstream processing, value-adding and international competitiveness. (4) A conference is to be convened at a time and place determined by the Chairperson. (5) Persons entitled to attend a conference are: (a) the members of the Council; and (b) such other persons concerned with the industry as the Chairperson, in consultation with the Deputy Chairperson, invites. (6) The Chairperson is to preside at all conferences.14 Publication of Council reports (1) Where a Council report is given to the Minister, the Minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament, as soon as practicable after its receipt by the Minister. (2) Where a member disagrees with a finding or recommendation to be included in a Council report, the report must include a statement of the views of that member in respect of that finding or recommendation and must identify the member holding those views.15 Constitution of Council (1) The Council is to consist of the following members: (a) a person representing the Commonwealth; (b) a person nominated by each of those States which have entered into RFAs under this Act; (c) 2 persons nominated by the Australian Council of Trade Unions; (d) a person representing persons having an interest in the protection of forest environments and ecosystems; (e) a person nominated by the Australian Conservation Foundation; (f) a person representing the interests of the hardwood sawmilling sector; (g) a person representing the interests of the softwood sawmilling sector; (h) a person representing the interests of the pulp and paper sector; (i) a person representing the interests of the timber furniture sector; (j) a person representing the interests of the reconstituted wood products sector; (k) a person representing the interests of merchandisers and retailers of timber products; (l) a person representing the interests of the forest-related tourism sector; (m) such other persons (if any) as represent such other bodies or organisations connected with the industry as are specified by the Minister in the instrument of appointment. (2) The members hold office on a part-time basis. (3) The members, other than a member referred to in paragraph (1)(a) or (b), are to be appointed by the Minister and hold office for such period, not exceeding 3 years, as is specified in the instrument of appointment but are eligible for re-appointment in accordance with this Act. (4) The Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson are each to represent one of the following interests: (a) the interests of the industry; (b) the interests of employees in the industry. (5) A person represents the interests of the industry if he or she is a member of the Council appointed under paragraph (1)(f), (g), (h), (i), (j), (k) or (l). (6) A person represents the interests of employees in the industry if he or she is a member of the Council appointed under paragraph (1)(c). (7) If the Chairperson represents one of the interests mentioned in subsection (4), then the Deputy Chairperson must represent the other interest mentioned in subsection (4). (8) After each 12 months in office, the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson must exchange positions. (9) The members hold office on such terms and conditions (if any) in relation to matters not provided for by this Act as are determined, in writing, by the Minister. (10) The performance of the functions, and the exercise of the powers, of the Council are not affected by reason only of vacancies in its membership.16 Acting Chairperson (1) The Deputy Chairperson is to act in the office of Chairperson: (a) during a vacancy in the office of Chairperson (whether or not an appointment has previously been made to the office); or (b) during any period, or during all periods, when the Chairperson is absent from duty or from Australia or is, for any other reason, unable to perform the duties of the office. (2) Anything done by or in relation to a person purporting to act under subsection (1) is not invalid merely because: (a) the occasion for the person's appointment had not arisen; or (b) there is a defect or irregularity in connection with the person's appointment; or (c) the person's appointment had ceased to have effect; or (d) the occasion for the person to act had not arisen or had ceased.17 Deputies of members (1) The Minister may, if requested by a person, body or organisation referred to in subsection 15(1), appoint a person to be the Deputy of a member referred to in that subsection. (2) The Minister must, if requested by the person or body that nominated a person to be the Deputy of a member, terminate the appointment of that person. (3) A Deputy of a member may resign by giving to the Minister a signed notice of resignation. (4) The Deputy of a member is entitled to attend a meeting of the Council that is not attended by the member of whom he or she is the Deputy and, while so attending, is taken to be a member. (5) The appointment of a Deputy of a member, and anything done by or in relation to a Deputy of a member, is not invalid merely because: (a) there is a defect or irregularity in connection with the Deputy's appointment; or (b) the occasion for the person to act under this section had not arisen or had ceased.18 Resignation of members A member may resign by giving to the Minister a signed notice of resignation.19 Termination of appointments etc. (1) The Minister may: (a) terminate the appointment of an appointed member for misbehaviour or physical or mental incapacity; or (b) on the ground of misbehaviour or physical or mental incapacity—give a written direction that a member, other than an appointed member, is not entitled to attend meetings of the Council or receive allowances under section 22. (2) If: (a) a member becomes bankrupt, applies to take the benefit of any law for the relief of bankrupt or insolvent debtors, compounds with his or her creditors or makes an assignment of his or her remuneration for their benefit; or (b) a member fails, without reasonable excuse, to comply with section 20; or (c) a member is absent, except with the leave of the Chairperson, from 3 consecutive meetings of the Council; the Minister must: (d) in the case of an appointed member—terminate the appointment of the member concerned; or (e) in the case of a member other than an appointed member—give a written direction that the member is not entitled to attend meetings of the Council or receive allowances under section 22. (3) In this section: appointed member means a member other than a member referred to in paragraph 15(1)(a) or (b).20 Disclosure of interests (1) Where: (a) a member has a direct or indirect pecuniary interest in a matter being considered, or about to be considered, by the Council; and (b) the interest could conflict with the proper performance of the member's duties in relation to the consideration of the matter; the member must, as soon as practicable after the relevant facts have come to the member's knowledge, disclose the nature of the interest at a meeting of the Council. (2) A disclosure under subsection (1) must be recorded in the minutes of the meeting.21 Meetings (1) The Chairperson, in consultation with the Deputy Chairperson, may convene such meetings of the Council as he or she considers necessary for the efficient performance of its functions, provided that the Council must meet at least every 2 months. (2) The Chairperson must convene a meeting of the Council on receipt of a written request signed by at least 4 members. (3) Meetings of the Council are to be held at such places and at such times as the Chairperson, in consultation with the Deputy Chairperson, determines. (4) The Chairperson is to preside at all meetings of the Council at which he or she is present. (5) If the Chairperson is not present at a meeting of the Council, the Deputy Chairperson is to preside at the meeting. (6) The Chairperson or the Deputy Chairperson is to preside at all meetings. (7) At a meeting of the Council, a quorum is constituted by 5 members. (8) A question arising at a meeting of the Council is to be decided by a majority of the votes of the members present and voting. (9) At a meeting of the Council, the member presiding has a deliberative vote and, in the event of an equality of votes, also has a casting vote. (10) The Council must keep minutes of its proceedings and publish them on the Internet within 14 days after each meeting. (11) The Council may invite a person to attend a meeting of the Council for the purposes of advising or informing it on any matter.22 Remuneration and allowances (1) The Chairperson and the Deputy Chairperson are to be paid such remuneration as is determined by the Remuneration Tribunal, but if no determination is in operation, the Chairperson and the Deputy Chairperson are to be paid such remuneration as is prescribed. (2) The Chairperson and the Deputy Chairperson are to be paid such allowances as are prescribed. (3) Subsections (1), (2), (4) and (5) have effect subject to the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973 . (4) A member (other than the Chairperson or the Deputy Chairperson of the Council) is to be paid such travelling allowance as is prescribed in relation to the performance of his or her duties as a member. (5) A member of the Council is not a public office within the meaning of the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973 .23 Staff of Council (1) The Chairperson may, on behalf of the Council and in consultation with the Deputy Chairperson, engage such employees as are necessary for the performance of the Council's functions. (2) The terms and conditions of employment of persons engaged under subsection (1) are as determined by the Council in writing. (3) The Chairperson may, on behalf of the Council and in consultation with the Deputy Chairperson, arrange with a Commonwealth authority or another body for the services of officers or employees of the authority or body to be made available for the purposes of the Council.24 Consultants (1) The Council may engage as consultants persons having suitable qualifications and experience. (2) The terms and conditions of engagement are to be determined by the Council.25 Money to be appropriated (1) There is payable to the Council such money as is from time to time appropriat ed by the Parliament for the purposes of the Council. (2) The Minister for Finance may give directions as to the amounts in which, and the times at which, money referred to in subsection (1) is to be paid to the Council.26 Money of Council (1) The money of the Council consists of money paid to the Council under section 25. (2) The money of the Council is to be applied only: (a) in payment or discharge of the expenses, obligations and liabilities of the Council arising under this Act; and (b) in payment of remuneration and allowances payable under this Act; and (c) in making any other payments required or permitted to be made by the Council. (3) Subsection (2) does not prevent investment of surplus money of the Council under section 18 of the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997 .27 Taxation The Council is not subject to taxation under any law of the Commonwealth, of a State or of a Territory.28 Annual report (1) The Council must, as soon as practicable after 30 June in each year, prepare and give to the Minister a report of its operations during the year that ended on that 30 June. (2) A report under subsection (1) must be prepared in accordance with Schedule 1 of the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997 . (3) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the day on which the Minister receives the report. (4) For the purposes of subsection (1), if this section does not come into operation on 1 July in any year, that subsection has effect in relation to the period commencing on the day on which this section comes into operation and ending on the 30 June next following that day as if that period were a period of one year ending on that 30 June.29 Regulations The Governor-General may make regulations, not inconsistent with this Act, prescribing all matters: (a) required or permitted by this Act to be prescribed; or (b) necessary or convenient to be prescribed in carrying out or giving effect to this Act.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—The question is that the amendment made by the Senate to the additional amendment made by the House be disagreed to.19:24:0013145Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON8T4ReidALP00—In moving to disagree to the Senate's additional amendment establishing a Wood and Paper Industry Council, the Minister for Forestry and Conservation, Mr Tuckey, sought to once again rewrite history and distort Labor's position. Like many other people, I am questioning what this process of misinformation and disinformation is going to accomplish in the long term for the industry. Quite frankly, I think most people who want to see this industry going forward want to obtain bipartisanship and want to push industry development in the forest industry area.The minister made a typically outlandish claim that the amendment by Labor is evidence that `the opposition wants to punish the CFMEU'. Given that it is a longstanding CFMEU policy to support an effective Wood and Paper Industry Council, perhaps he could explain how our support for the concept is a form of punishment. What an illogical outburst! I make it clear that the opposition has never asked the CFMEU to boycott the coalition's weak and obviously ineffective advisory council. Like other unions and interest groups in whatever portfolio, they have to deal with the minister of the day on behalf of their members and use whatever forums are available to them to seek to accomplish it. That is life; that is the reality. The CFMEU's agreement to join any inferior council that the government might establish thus causes me no difficulty, no disquiet, whatsoever.It is perfectly clear that it is only because of Labor's sustained advocacy of a Wood and Paper Industry Council that the minister—after months of equivocation and, more importantly, consistent opposition, outright hostility and criticism of an industry council—has been dragged here in the last week or so and now offers even this weak alternative. The reality is that it has been accomplished by the Labor Party's pressure on this matter over many months. The difference is now between a fully fledged council, proposed by Labor and supported by the Democrats in the latest Senate debate, and the minister's third-best proposal.A remarkable aspect of the minister's contribution was regarding the composition of the two bodies. He attacked our proposal but failed to say who would be on his advisory council. Perhaps he did not want to remind people that the amendment he sent to the Senate said that his advisory council would consist of the minister as chairperson and `such other members as the minister appoints in writing'. The only qualification is that a majority of the members must be from the forests and wood products sector. Under that wording, he could clearly appoint Kerry Jones, Leonie Kramer, Dick Smith, Ron Walker or Rex Mossop, for that matter, if he wanted to.The minister says Labor would, crime of crimes, give a spot to the Australian Conservation Foundation—it is true that we would, there is no denying it, just as his own government had the ACF president speak at the launch of the new Tumut paper mill. A number of ministers in the government understand that this is a bit more than just resource security that we have to accomplish in this industry in the long term. They are not the only people in any manner associating with the ACF. No doubt, he just forgot to note that under our proposal the ACF representative would be one of 17 council members.SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—Seventeen?8T4Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON—The minister has a furrowed brow over there. The situation is that the ACF would have one position out of 17—I do not actually call that a majority these days.It is important to remember that we have a chronic and unsustainable trade deficit in wood based forest products. As the minister himself noted in his media release of 23 September, Australia's trade deficit in 1998-99 was a massive $1.96 billion—an increase of $218 million on the previous year. So while the minister has been running around recklessly attacking both coalition and Labor state governments, the picture has been deteriorating further.It is all right to tell the Australian public time after time what a big problem we have with the trade deficit, how it is growing, how dreadful it is, et cetera. But the fact of life is that the minister has not kept his eye on the ball and the trade deficit has deteriorated further while he has been basically concentrating on causing mayhem to as many state governments—most particularly his coalition colleagues in Western Australia—as he can over the last year. This indicates that we are a long way from obtaining adequate value for the harvesting of our native forests and plantations and that things are worsening, not improving. The only feasible way to turn this situation around is to seriously and energetically address value adding. (Time expired)Consideration interrupted; adjournment proposed and negatived.Debate (on motion by Mrs Sullivan) adjourned.Questions Without Notice131461314619:30:0013146Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—by leave—I wish to briefly add to an answer I gave in question time. In question time I was asked by the honourable member for Jagajaga about MRIs. The answers that I gave in question time were absolutely correct, but subsequent to question time I have been informed that in fact some representations have been made to my office on this matter. One includes a representation from Dr Dubois's solicitors. These representations were not drawn to my attention, because it was believed it would be quite improper for me, as minister, to get actively involved in any Health Insurance Commission investigation. Adjournment13147Motion (by Mrs Sullivan) proposed:That the House do now adjourn.1314719:31:0013147Livermore, Kirsten, MPMs LIVERMORE83ACapricorniaALP00—The question I am asking the House tonight is: when is this government going to give regional Australia a break? There are lots of reasons for asking that question, but tonight I want to talk about one in particular that is affecting Rockhampton, the major city in the electorate of Capricornia. There is currently a proposal on the agenda from Airservices Australia that our airport in Rockhampton be downgraded and, correspondingly, that the support services of the airport—specifically, the firefighting service at Rockhampton airport—be cut.Currently, the airport is operating as a category 6 airport. The proposal being put by Airservices Australia is for the airport to be downgraded to a category 5. The frustrating and disappointing part about this proposal is that it has come at a time when the airport runway is being extended. It is being extended by 647 metres, to a total of 2,628 metres. That work is happening right this minute, and the extension is due to be opened in early 2000. The federal government as part of its initiatives before the last federal election invested $7 million to extend the runway. That decision was made because of the opportunities that the extended runway could provide to Rockhampton and our local Central Queensland area.One of those uses into the future is increased military use, with the ever increasing popularity of Shoalwater Bay in Central Queensland as a site for international military exercises. This year, for example, we had 10,000 Singaporean soldiers actually fly by Singapore Airlines into Rockhampton airport direct from Singapore to take part in exercises. We have also seen an increase in charter flights from Japan coming direct into Rockhampton. The federal government, I am assuming, saw fit in response to submissions from the city council to extend the runway to promote the benefits that an extended runway could bring in those areas.Now we see that Airservices Australia is proposing to take away the services that can support the increased capacity and activity of Rockhampton airport. So we as a city are saying: give us time to establish the benefits of this extended runway. We have put the submission to you. You have given us the $7 million. Give us time now to capitalise on the extended runway to bring benefits to our region before making this very pre-emptive and, I would say, short-sighted decision to downgrade our airport.The proposal from Airservices Australia is that the airport will be downgraded to category 5. However, at times of increased activity they promise us that we will have extra firemen provided to our airport to cope with the extra operations at that time. So somehow from around the rest of Australia the fireman fairy is going to find these extra firemen from other airports and ship them up to Rockhampton. In the meantime, we will go for many months of the year without the full firefighting capacity that our airport deserves.I just do not understand this proposal at this time. The government clearly saw the value in our arguments for a longer runway. It must have seen the potential that it had to increase tourism and our standing as a centre for military operations. Obviously, it thought it was $7 million worth of potential for our region. Why then is it trying to make life so difficult for us to now capitalise on the benefits that that extended runway can bring, now that the runway is going to be a reality?As I see it, it is simply another example of drawing services and opportunities out of regional Queensland. In Rockhampton we have seen the Taxation Office close, we have seen a decrease of at least 25 staff in Centrelink, one of our Family Court counsellors has gone never to be seen again, dozens of jobs have gone from DETYA, and now we are faced with the loss of five full-time skilled jobs in Rockhampton. They are talking about redeploying or making redundant five full-time firefighters from our airport at a time when we are trying to make the airport the centre of regional initiatives to secure our future. I am calling on Airservices Australia to take heed of the arguments that we as a city are putting, to hold off this decision to downgrade the airport and to leave us our full firefighting service. I am calling on the government to support Rockhampton in our efforts to get the maximum benefit out of the airport. You have put in the $7 million. Give us some time to prove to you the benefits of that investment.1314819:36:0013148Vale, Danna, MPMrs VALEVK6HughesLP10—We are about to exit the 20th century, a century remarkable for its discoveries, inventions, innovations and technological advances in the service of humankind. As Australians, we pride ourselves on excelling in all walks of life. These include our sporting activities, our resourcefulness and our creative and innovative skills. In the world of sport—whether it be cricket, soccer or tennis—we have shown that we are a nation of champions. In 1999 Australians were No. 1 in nearly all international sporting codes.Inventions like the development of the black box flight recorder, the Hills rotary clothes hoist, plastic banknotes and refrigerators are only a tiny representation of the ability of Australians to think laterally and to produce highly inventive solutions. In the area of medicine and medical devices, Australia can be proud of developing the bionic ear, penicillin, pacemakers and ultrasound technology, to name just a sample few. Unfortunately, many of these successes end up in the hands of overseas companies.I wish to draw to the attention of this House a very particular female health problem, one that causes death to many women not only in Australia but also world wide, that is, cervical cancer. Cervical cancer is one of the major forms of cancer in women. Throughout the world there are 500,000 new cases diagnosed each year and nearly 300,000 deaths annually. It is a disease that if diagnosed early enough is curable. In Australia there are nine million women who should be tested for this disease at least every two years, yet only 63 per cent of women have a regular examination. Over 1,000 women are diagnosed with cervical cancer and nearly one woman dies each day in Australia. The majority of these women's lives could have been saved if they had had a regular examination known as a `Pap smear'.I am about to publicly speak of some very secret women's business, and I do so because there are many women who resist having a regular Pap smear examination which could save their lives. One of the major reasons for this resistance to a Pap smear is the medieval method by which women are examined for this test. The instrument used in the Pap smear examination is known as the `duckbill' speculum, and I am holding one in my hand. This device has been around for 100 years. Just look at it. I am sure you can understand the fear and trepidation that women have at the thought of this device being used upon them. Yes, there are disposable speculums, but the designs are essentially the same. It has also been known for plastic models to break, lock and indeed lacerate the patient from time to time.I wish to draw to the attention of Australian women and this House that a Sydney company called S.S.H. Medical Ltd has developed a revolutionary speculum which reduces the intrusiveness and discomfort which is caused by the duckbill speculum. Mr Clemens Van Der Weegan has been developing this new speculum, called the Venus speculum, over the last 10 years with the support of a small number of Australian shareholders. I draw to your attention, Mr Deputy Speaker, that this company has got on with its own research and development without any government assistance. Just look at the duckbill speculum versus the Venus speculum, an Australian invention, and tell me which one you would prefer. You will notice the considerate design of the Venus speculum and its soft, rubber doughnut shape. S.S.H Medical's product also offers significant advantages for the medical practitioner. For the first time there is internal illumination and a six to one magnification which will allow the practitioner to take better cell samples, thus offering an increased chance to save Australian women's lives.This innovative product has huge export and job creation potential for Australia. Over 310 million cervical cancer examinations currently are undertaken each year throughout the world. Equally important is that, in an ideal world, over 2.3 billion women should be screened for this disease. As you can see from these figures, this Australian company has taken a very positive step on the road to reducing the number of women—300,000—who die each year from this cancer. S.S.H. Medical Ltd expects its products to be available to Australian women and practitioners in July next year, and shortly thereafter to attack the world market.I take this opportunity to congratulate S.S.H. Medical Ltd for the development of this considerate, innovative product which finally eliminates the archaic device the duckbill speculum. The Venus speculum will encourage more women to have the Pap smear test, thus having real potential to save women's lives both here in Australia and worldwide.1314919:41:0013149Plibersek, Tanya, MPMs PLIBERSEK83MSydneyALP00—I rise tonight to pay tribute to some people in my electorate who are quiet achievers—the 20 people who recently won seniors awards in the electorate of Sydney. I want to briefly mention some of those people. They include Sylvia Scott, an Elder of the Widjuri nation, who has worked for many years to improve the lives of Aboriginal people living in the inner city. She has been particularly involved in the provision of services to elderly Aboriginal people through the Max Silva Centre and through child-care, education and community development. There is also Sadie King, a long-time political and community activist, who was very much involved in the campaign to save the Glebe Housing Estate from demolition in the 1970s and is now also an active member of Beehive Industries.There is Roy Watterson, an accomplished tenor who for many years has provided high-class, affordable entertainment for elderly people through Nostalgia Productions. The concerts are run with both national and international performers. There is Joy Ross, a long-time campaigner for social justice. She is particularly interested in quality of life issues for public housing tenants. She has worked for community transport, the remodel ling of local parks and establishing a community centre and tenancy advice service. She is also one of the founders of the Older Women's Network, which now has 14 groups in New South Wales and is a national organisation. Bob Day was also nominated. He is a political activist and historian who has been active in the Glebe Housing Estate. He is an integral member of the Glebe Historical Society and the Glebe Tenants Group.Melina Galluzzo was also nominated. She is the owner of a fruit shop on Glebe Point Road, and she was described by her nominees as `the kindest person' they had ever met. She has devoted her life to working for organisations such as the Glebe Estate community church, Glebe High School and St James Primary School. For many years she has dressed dolls and teddy bears bought from second-hand shops with clothes she has made herself and given them to local charity fetes and hospitals. She also regularly donates fruit and vegetables, particularly for raffles. There is Patti Willis, who has worked tirelessly to improve local community facilities, particularly in relation to pedestrian safety and tenants rights. She is currently involved in campaigns related to the Rachel Forster Hospital and the Waterloo Post Office. She particularly works with elderly and visually impaired people, taking them shopping and to appointments and so on.Margaret Barry was also nominated. She is a stalwart of the south Sydney area. She is the former coordinator of the Inner Sydney Regional Council for Social Development and the former editor of Inner Voice, an excellent magazine that many members of parliament may have seen over the years. She is so highly respected in her local community that they raised money from people with very low incomes to send her on an overseas trip—the first of her life.Alan Duncan was also nominated. He has been a long-time advocate of Aboriginal education. Indeed, he was one of the people who many years ago initiated a bridging course at Sydney University so Aboriginal people who had not finished high school could receive a university education.Rick O'Meara has been nominated. He has been very active in the Surry Hills community and is in the Department of Housing Area Forum Tenants Association and the Housing Standards Committee. He is the editor of a local newsletter and serves on the Neighbourhood Advisory Board as well.Di Carr is a local artist who has for many years exhibited in the inner city and has been an active member of Amnesty International. She exhibits in Chippendale at The Gallery, which has been exhibiting paintings from local artists for the past 25 years.Ron Quilter was nominated. Ron is a very active member of Sydney's gay community and was very active in the gay community as early as the 1940s when, indeed, that was not a popular cause. He is a former president of the Bobby Goldsmith Foundation, which is an excellent charity established to assist AIDS suffers.Freida and Ted McDermott were both nominated also. Ted is particularly involved with Beaconsfield Junior Neighbourhood Watch, which provides young people with positive role models; and Freida is particularly active in the local play group. Nell Leonard, who is one of the saviours of Woolloomooloo from development in the 1970s, was also nominated, as were Dawn O'Donnell, Drew Robertson, Ron Sutton and Mary Constable.The winner was Greg Johnston, who has lived in Glebe for more than 60 years and has in all of that time been what is commonly known as a quiet achiever. I take this opportunity to particularly congratulate Greg Johnston for his work over the years, and to say to all of those people who were nominated for the Senior Citizens Recognition Awards that the community of Sydney very much appreciates their work over the years. Although they are not often acknowledged, they are certainly close to our hearts and very much appreciated.1315019:46:0013150Andrews, Kevin, MPMr ANDREWSHK5MenziesLP10—I rise tonight to hopefully draw attention to an important problem that affects many of our sick and elderly in nursing homes and hospi tals. In the last budget the government acknowledged the seriousness of injuries caused by falls for elderly Australians. In 1995 there were 60,000 hospitalisations because of falls. We know that these falls often lead to longer-term disability and do contribute to the high cost of health care overall in the nation. The government is therefore to be congratulated for contributing $6.6 million over four years to activities that reduce the rate of falls. These include training of health care workers and further research into the causes of falls and how to prevent them.This matter was highlighted for me by one of my constituents, Mr Bob Burling, whose wife suffered three major falls after a cerebral haemorrhage and stroke and then a number of falls in a nursing home. This prompted Mr Burling, who is a retired engineer, to design something to protect his wife from further injury. I recently attended the local nursing home where Mrs Burling is, to see for myself this device which had been designed by Mr Burling. It is what he calls the CSAR system, which is short for Controlled Space Alarm Response, which controls the space around the bed at a certain level and width, above and beside the patient, by creating an invisible, noiseless, electromagnetic field which rings an alarm when any part of the patient enters the space in this field around the bed.The CSAR system is made of economical, off-the-shelf components and can most easily be plugged into the hospital's alarm system, if it has one. It does not obstruct the patient in the bed or the movements of nursing staff—or others, for that matter, who are attending or visiting the patient. An ultrasonic sound scanner fixed to the head of the bed can adjust the space control to take account of the size of the particular patient. It is plugged into the hospital interface on the wall, where it has an electronic circuit. This interface goes to a panel beside the bed, and a light is activated beside the bed and outside the room where the alarm is located, along with the room identification for the particular patient.If a patient is restless or distressed or sticks an arm or a leg outside the bed or through the space around the bed, the alarm will be activated, alerting the staff of the home that the patient is disturbed. The bell stops as soon as the patient moves back out of the zone of control of the device. If the patient tries to sit up or stand up or, for that matter, is leaning over the side of the bed where he or she could fall out, an alarm will ring in the alarm centre for the hostel or nursing home staff, immediately identifying which patient in which bed they should attend to.The details of the device are, in one regard, unimportant, and I am not here wishing to tout for sales for a constituent: he in fact has refused to make these devices, despite being requested to do so by individuals, because he believes this is something that should be provided much more generally. The point of what I am saying tonight is to highlight the fact that the present duty of care for patients is something which we need to continue to attend to. Hospitals and nursing homes fulfil their legal duty by providing routine ward rounds but, in many regards, as we know, unfortunately more needs to be done. People who are frail and distressed but physically active can have falls at any time.We have, in this design, which I have seen working and in operation, technology which can prevent falls in hospitals in a much better way than the bell system which is available at the present time. For example, Mr Burling's unit costs about $1,000 to make in its prototype form but, if it were made en masse, obviously the unit cost would be much less. It is not cheap at this price but, when you consider the cost to health care and all the subsequent costs when a fall does occur for a patient in bed, it is something which I urge the government to look into to see if we can do more in this regard—particularly when the technological expertise to make these sorts of workable devices is now readily available.1315119:51:0013151O'Byrne, MichelleMs O'BYRNE84SBassALP00—I rise tonight to speak on a matter of the utmost importance to the community in Bass: the creation of employment and the resulting retention of our population, which is essential for our community to continue to benefit from the growth in information technology. It is not a recent occurrence but an ongoing part of life in northern Tasmania that members of our communities, families and, in particular, young people are now forced to leave our state to seek employment opportunities in the larger mainland cities. It is a trend that is repeating itself in regional areas right around Australia but has been exacerbated by the isolation of an island state such as Tasmania is.With higher than the national average unemployment levels, the comments made by the Australian Catholic Social Welfare Commission in September as a preface to their discussion paper on regional unemployment seemed totally apt for the current situation in my electorate. They state:It often happens that in one and the same country citizens enjoy different degrees of wealth and social advancement. This especially happens because they dwell in areas which, economically speaking, have grown at different rates. Where such is the case, justice and equality demand that the government make efforts either to remove or minimise the imbalances of this sort.It is in this vein that the community of Bass and I, as the member, call on the government to address the removal or minimisation of this imbalance. As a nation, we cannot afford to let the inequality between capital cities and regional areas grow any larger. Regional areas of Australia need to become this country's strength—and not be deemed to be their weakness, as is fast becoming the case.As we move into the new millennium, we move further away from an industrial economy and into an information economy. Information technology is bringing countries closer together. There are new opportunities emerging for communications between governments, businesses, community organisations and individuals. Global change is blamed for many of the problems in regional Australia but, while we recognise this claim, we should also look at the optimistic side of what can be developed in the regions as a result of this change. There is a real opportunity for regional Australia to forge links and develop relationships with the larger world economy.For a state such as Tasmania, this opens up great opportunities. In Tasmania we have seen a steady decline in public infrastructure spending and a sharp move away from policies of cross-subsidisation, reducing any level of interregional equity. For example, since 1995-96 real public infrastructure spending has dropped by just under $2 billion. This decline had its biggest impact in regional and urban Australia. The most obvious area of underinvestment in regional Australia has been in telecommunications and information technology infrastructure.The adoption of telecommunications and information technology infrastructure by regional communities provides areas such as Bass with a survival strategy in an environment of economic rationalism and declining population. This is achieved by adopting electronic services and communication methods not only to retain the current population but also to increase it by structuring an attractive lifestyle of integrated real and virtual services. With the ever rapid advancement in the information technology area, we have, as a country, the chance to build on regional advantages. It is this sort of industry enhancement that a city like Launceston needs. It is time that the commitment to infrastructure, resources, training and ongoing government support was afforded to regional areas in the same way. There are still barriers in place which inhibit regional cities such as Launceston competing on a level playing field with companies located in capital cities.For example, Telstra's tariffs for data services such as frame relay and asynchronous transfer mode, ATM, are currently higher in Launceston than they are in Hobart. The tariffs appear to be arbitrary. It seems that, regardless of commercial and infrastructure considerations, there is one commercial tariff for capital cities and another higher tariff for non-capital cities. As you would know, Mr Deputy Speaker, Launceston is some two hours drive from Hobart so the disparity appears to be quite ludicrous. Regional cities such as Launceston are commercially disadvantaged due to arbitrary Telstra tariffs for broadband data services. This is equivalent to Launceston transport companies being charged more for using federally funded arterial roads than equivalent transport companies in Hobart. It is equivalent to an added impost on commercial activity and exports from regional Australian cities. It is time for this federal government to address this issue and to show its support to regional Australia before it is too late.For a city like Launceston, information technology represents the best opportunity to create new jobs and economic chances. It is a major strategy urgently required to transform the economy and the region into a viable and attractive environment in order to attract new business.1315219:56:0013152Schultz, Alby, MPMr SCHULTZ83QHumeLP10—I rise tonight on a very serious potential problem for the apple and pear industry in Australia, and I refer to a renewed request by New Zealand to export apples to Australia, which could see the introduction of the disease fire blight, which could wipe out a $900 million apple and pear industry. This recent approach was advised to the Australian Apple and Pear Growers Association and other stakeholders on 25 February, and it follows on from the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service advice on 10 December 1998 rejecting a previous application from New Zealand.Fire blight is identified by AQIS as a high impact disease. A number of technical issues associated with the fire blight organism were identified in the AQIS final import risk analysis as scientifically based grounds for outright rejection of the New Zealand request of 10 December 1998. New Zealand has not yet provided any new technical data to overcome these barriers in its most recent request, and I find it absolutely horrifying and repugnant in the extreme to see an organisation like the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service, within three months of laying down a decision that rejected an application by New Zealand to import apples into Australia, suddenly reconsider the importation.The question needs to be asked: why did AQIS not reject the claim outright in the absence of new scientific data? The grounds for the rejection were that importation under the conditions proposed could not afford Australia the level of protection deemed necessary in relation to the serious threat that fire blight poses to the apple and pear industries. Why did AQIS elect to process the New Zealand application using the routine and less rigorous pest risk analysis pathway when they acknowledge that the impact of fire blight in Australia is likely to be very high and that fire blight is endemic in New Zealand apple producing regions? If a disease as serious as fire blight cannot provide grounds for a non-routine assessment, what can? Why did AQIS not reject the claim outright as it followed within three months of a previously failed application? Why was New Zealand not required to undergo a cooling-off period between applications?It is my belief that the need for a thorough inquiry into AQIS and the circumstances surrounding recent PRAs is increasingly apparent. In the interests of protecting another of our great industries in this country, there is an absolute case for the Standing Committee on Primary Industries and Regional Services to approach the federal minister, after which the minister should initiate an inquiry and supply the committee with the appropriate terms of reference. Our agricultural and horticultural industries are under continual pressure from outside influence under the guise of World Trade Organisation arrangements which give other countries an unfair advantage because of the subsidies that are driven with those sorts of actions taken by countries using World Trade Organisation guidelines. That is bad enough in itself without having a situation in this country where one of our own organisations, which has had in the past some considerable success in protecting Australian industries, is looking, for whatever reason—and hence my call for an inquiry—to reverse a decision it made three months previously and to allow New Zealand to once again make an application which it is seriously considering.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 8 p.m., the debate is interrupted.House adjourned at 8.00 p.m.Notices13153The following notices were given:Mr McGauran to present a bill for an act to amend the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Act 1999, and for related purposes.Dr Wooldridge to present a bill for an act to amend legislation relating to health, and for related purposes.Mr Slipper to present a bill for an act to amend the Ministers of State Act 1952 and other legislation in relation to Parliamentary Secretaries, and for other purposes.Mr McGauran to present a bill for an act to amend the Broadcasting Services Act 1992, and for other purposes.Mr Reith to move:That:(1) sessional order 104A (Private Members' business—procedure) be amended by omitting the following words: "Upon the respective notice being called on by the Clerk, the Member in whose name the notice stands shall present the bill and may speak for a period not exceeding five minutes in support of it." and substituting the following words: "Upon the respective notice being called on by the Clerk, the Member in whose name the notice stands shall present the bill and may speak for a period not exceeding fifteen minutes in support of it.";(2) sessional order 104A (as amended by part (1)) continue in operation until the end of the session;(3) sessional orders 101 (Routine of business) and 102C (Precedence to motions regarding committee and delegation reports) be adopted as standing orders; and(4) the resolution of the House relating to the disclosure of in camera committee evidence adopted on 3 December 1998 remain effective until the end of the session.Mr Latham to move:That this House:(1) notes the alarming skills deficit in regional Australia, especially in terms of higher education access;(2) regards the elimination of this skills deficit as the key to successful regional development and equity in Australia;(3) notes the complete failure of the Howard Government to address this problem;(4) recognises the need to build greater diversity and equity into Australia's higher education system; and (5) supports policies to lower the costs of regional university education.Mr Horne to move:That a Standing Committee on Legal Affairs and Ethics be appointed to inquire into whether to permit human surrogacy in Australia and, if so,:(1) under what terms and conditions surrogacy should be legalised; and(2) the legal, ethical, moral and religious framework by which legal agreements could be drawn up to allow human surrogacy to take place giving maximum legal safeguards to all people involved.Mr Latham to move:That this House:(1) notes the preliminary findings of the Australian National Training Authority National Marketing Strategy for Skills and Lifelong Learning;(2) recognises the substantial enthusiasm and energy of Australians for lifelong learning;(3) notes with concern the public's reservations about the effectiveness and suitability of formal educational institutionals; and(5) declares its support for the urgent development of an innovative national policy for the adult and community education sector as the best way of engaging Australians in the benefits of lifelong learning.1999-12-08Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Nehl) took the chair at 9.40 a.m.Statements by Members131551315513155Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMSBV5LyonsALP00—I am concerned as to how we appear to be treating our refugees. Firstly, we had the Kosovars invited to this country to find a safe haven until conditions improved enough for some of them to return. Some, though, had nothing to return to and were looking for alternatives and making friends. Then the government decided that they had had enough of these people and sought to be rid of them unceremoniously.Then the East Timorese were invited to come to Australia. In fact, many were airlifted out because of the great danger their country was posing to them. They had settled in—some of them with a number of serious health problems which had to be dealt with before they could go anywhere.The next thing we know, the government is sick of them, too, and wants them out. But as some of them were not well enough to move, the government decided to split families and send them to another camp. When the nation goes on holidays for at least two weeks—and in many departments much longer—these families would be forced to spend time apart from their loved ones at a time when there is supposed to be `goodwill for all men'.We cannot treat people like this. These are people who have suffered unimaginable trauma, who have been in terror, with little food and water, watching members of their families die. When they think they have found a safe haven, the government sends them away from their recently regained support systems, either back to East Timor in the wet, where conditions are extreme, or off to some other camp where they have to start all over again.The United Nations charter has a preamble which contains the words:We the peoples of the United Nations determined . . . to reaffirm faith in the fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of the nations large and small, and . . . to promote social progress and better standards of life . . . have resolved to combine our efforts to accomplish these aims.As far as I can see, this government has failed in its duty to the United Nations to ensure that the people who seek refuge within our national boundaries have been allowed to achieve these goals.These are not illegal immigrants. We are talking about people who were plucked out of the living hell of the UNAMET compound in September. The way that the government is hounding these people back to unsuitable conditions in the wet is indecent. Those that protest are treated like criminals and illegal immigrants. The minister might reflect for a moment on the words of John Donne who, when hearing the church bell peal at Christmas for peace and goodwill, said:Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; And therefore, never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.1315613156Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—Seasons greetings to you and to all our parliamentary colleagues on all sides of the House and particularly to the good folk of Dunkley who, I hope, have a very enjoyable and safe Christmas season. We have had our first bushfire and we have got coastal concerns ahead of us but it should be a terrific break for everybody.I rise today to briefly talk about the outcome from the Seattle World Trade Organisation talks and what they might mean in a broader context. The outcome of the talks was disappointing, but it does point to some larger issues that must be of concern to all of us. Trade is broadly understood as a way of improving living standards, and I suppose policy makers right around the world embrace that idea. We have not always been terribly successful in communicating that to our communities, but the basic point is that trade is a way forward to improve living standards, both in the developed world and the developing world.But even with that consensus, Seattle shows you that that consensus can fall over when nations seek to optimise the benefits each can secure for its own citizens. It really is a contest about who can win most—a sort of a global pie grab is what we saw there.I would like to congratulate Minister Vaile for seeking to open up the debate about actually growing the pie so that all nations have the opportunity to improve, including our own. As difficult as trade is and as clear as the potential advantages are, Seattle failed to deliver some substantive steps forward that many were hoping for.The lesson for us is that when there is international cooperation to address international challenges, where we can see the upsides, sometimes we still fail as we try to compartmentalise the subject of trade. Other issues come into it. Consider the atmospherics of Seattle as they relate to our atmosphere. I am speaking about global warming, specifically the Kyoto protocol. You saw in a trade debate that environmental issues came in. On that environmental issue, where we have a general agreement that human activity is changing our climate, we do not have consensus on precisely what action A means in terms of climate change. So the challenge is even greater.I cannot see a way forward in getting international agreement to implement Kyoto unless we introduce some of the issues that were talked about in Seattle—trade, for instance. How are we going to explain to our cement manufacturers that they have to concern themselves with emissions when developing countries do not have to? How are we going to address our car industry and say, `You have to be mindful of your emissions when you are manufacturing these vehicles, but competitors do not have to be'? I wonder whether the way forward is to say to developing countries which have not committed to Kyoto, `If you want to bring your goods and services into the developing world, where we have Kyoto commitments, you may need to address climate concerns, because that is important to us.' Maybe that is the way forward. (Time expired)1315613156Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4Northern TerritoryALP00—I rise today to address the issue of the crisis in funding of the Northern Territory University brought about by decisions made by this government. It is epitomised by the recent emasculation of the Faculty of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies at the Northern Territory University. I have been associated with this faculty in one form or another since its establishment as a task force at the centre for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander studies at the old Darwin Community College at Winnellie.As recently as last week, cuts were announced to the staffing of this faculty as a result of a review which recommended a number of dramatic changes. I need to point out that people saw the need for the review and do believe that changes need to be made to the administration of the faculty. Criticisms of the review are that it made no attempt to systematically review faculty operations, with no analytical assessment of the faculty as an academic unit of the Northern Territory University; that it provided no clear pathways ahead for the success of the faculty, either educationally or financially; and that it denied any opportunities to critically evaluate work practices internally and respond proactively.This faculty is a very important part of the university, but as a result of the decisions now taken by the university hierarchy 21 jobs will go from the faculty and courses will be lost. Five courses are to be transferred to other parts of the university. We know already that as a result of these decisions no guarantee can be given to students or to potential students that courses they might have commenced or intend to commence will be completed.We also know that this organisation has been extremely important in attracting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students to the university. This has made a marked difference in the way in which the university has been able to market itself to between 25 per cent and 30 per cent of the Northern Territory population who are, of course, indigenous Australians.But this is not the only area where the university is proposing cuts to services for indigenous Australians. There is a proposal to cut dramatically the staffing of the vocational and remote studies unit. If this proposal proceeds, the unit will be in a position where it was eight years ago. This organisation provides outreach services to remote communities around the Northern Territory. It is a very important instrument in ensuring access and educational opportunity for indigenous Australians.The fact is that the Northern Territory University is all but in crisis, and it is all but in crisis because of the failure of this government to fund properly regional universities around Australia. The person who is directly responsible for these cuts, although the university administration has implemented them, is the current Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs in this parliament.1315713157Nairn, Gary, MPMr NAIRNOK6Eden-MonaroLP10—Mr Deputy Speaker, Networking the Nation is proving to be an excellent program in rural and regional Australia. As you would know, coming from a rural and regional seat yourself, the government recognised that there were significant gaps in quality and cost of telecommunications between metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas, and that is why we introduced this five-year, $250 million program. In my seat of Eden-Monaro in recent days, we have seen three excellent projects funded under Networking the Nation. They are going to go a long way towards filling in some of those gaps and breaking down the sorts of barriers that are in our area compared with the services that are available in the urban regions.The first project, in which I have been involved for quite some time now working with Clare Whiter and other people in the Eden community, has funding of over $160,000 for the establishment of the Eden Community Access Centre. This access centre will centralise up-to-the-minute services in Eden, which will help that economic development. The access centre will have telecentre facilities, including computers, Internet access and videoconferencing. With it also will come some associated support and training for the people in the Eden region. It will bring to Eden things that just have not been there before and will open up all sorts of possibilities, particularly for people in the business sector who want to be in a region such as Eden for lifestyle purposes rather than in an urban area. It is a great project, and I congratulate Clare and the people who have been working on this for probably the last 18 months to two years to get this project up.The second project has funding of $1.1 million, which covers the ACT and the Australian capital region. There are two parts to this $1.1 million: the Healthy Communities project, with funding of $840,000; and the Australian Capital Region On-line Services System, with funding of $300,000. Once again, this will bring additional services online into this regional area, Eden-Monaro being part of it, along with the ACT and the broader capital region. They are two terrific projects that have been funded under this program.The third one, which I helped Margaret Reid launch a couple of weeks ago in the ACT, is called Computer Gym. That takes a computer training set-up out into the regions to show people, particularly those in small businesses, the benefits of being online—of being on the Internet. It shows them what they can do in a regional area if they are online. (Time expired)1315813158Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON8K6HunterALP00—Cessnock's Allandale Nursing Home is one of the few aged care facilities which continues to be owned and operated by state governments. In the early 1990s, the Commonwealth made an offer to take over the responsibility, including financial responsibility for aged care facilities. It was obvious then that the states could no longer afford the increasing cost of aged care and, in any case, the then system was producing inconsistent care standards and a maldistribution of funding. The states took up the federal government's offer and an agreement between the Commonwealth and Australia's six states was signed. That agreement included an acceptance on the part of the states that the capital component of nursing home bed funding would not be paid to state government owned and operated nursing homes—a perfectly reasonable proposition.The Commonwealth took over the lion's share of the funding burden but expected the states to maintain responsibility for its own infrastructure. Put simply, that means that state owned nursing homes receive less funding per bed than their private sector counterparts. The situation was compounded recently when the Howard government changed nursing home resident classifications, which resulted in Allandale losing more money due to its high number of patients classified as requiring only low care.I want to express my understanding of the financial burden which the current funding arrangements place upon the New South Wales government and the Hunter Area Health Service. I want also to acknowledge the significant amount of money the state government has dedicated to the upgrading of Allandale's facilities in recent months. I welcome that funding and I thank the New South Wales government.But my main concerns centre around the activities of the Chief Executive Officer of the Hunter Area Health Service, Professor Katherine McGrath. Professor McGrath has a strategy to save the Hunter Area Health Service more than $3 million each year. That strategy is to transfer ownership of and responsibility for Allandale to the non-government sector. Professor McGrath wants to completely wipe her hands of Allandale. This move has significant ramifications for Allandale's staff and will completely change the nature of the facility. It could be that, if staffing issues are overcome, if certain guarantees with respect to standards are secured and if a proper, transparent tender process is undertaken with respect to the choice of the non-government provider, the project will be acceptable, as long as the community, of course, is consulted. However, Professor McGrath's approach has been one clouded with deceit, political manoeuvring and an attempt to use a community based committee to focus blame away from herself.Earlier this year, Professor McGrath established the Allandale Aged Care Facility Future Directions Committee, of which I am a member. She has consistently used that committee to deflect attention away from herself. I want to put Professor McGrath on notice today that, while I understand she has some financial burdens to deal with, I will not support the transfer of Allandale to the non-government sector until she demonstrates a preparedness to consult the community properly on this issue and take responsibility for her own actions which are designed to save her money. (Time expired)1315913159Entsch, Warren, MPMr ENTSCH7K6LeichhardtLP10—I rise this morning to raise some very serious and real concerns of family owned prawn fishing operations within my electorate and in the Northern Territory over the implementation of the Northern Prawn Fishery Management Plan 1999. The small fishing operators have been raising concerns, particularly in regard to the fairness of this plan, and about the impact of the plan on sustainability. It appears, from what the fishermen have said, that this has been bulldozed through. At the end of the day, they believe it is going to strongly benefit the large corporate and foreign owned side of the fisheries at the expense of small family operators who originally developed this fishery.They are concerned that AFMA has withheld information that certainly supported their argument, particularly a report by David Sterling, a very eminent scientist with a mechanical engineering degree who also majored in fishing technology at the Australian Maritime College. He argued that what AFMA has put forward will increase the effort of fishermen by some 60 per cent. The way in which it is being done is going to certainly destroy the small fishing operators. David Sterling was also supported by Professor Linder from Western Australia, a professor of economics, yet their views have been totally ignored in this whole process.They are calling for the Northern Prawn Fishery Management Plan 1999 to be withdrawn. They are also calling for a full and transparent inquiry into the AFMA board. They have put forward a vote of no confidence in the current Director of AFMA, Frank Meere. They have put up a proposal which is certainly, in my view, far more equitable, calling for a 12-fathom cap. They want to retain engine and boat restrictions, which have basically been opened up for the large corporate fisheries, and this is the major problem that they are having. They are also wanting to fund their own scientific research into the area, so that the information can be based on actual science, rather than the way in which it is being done at the moment through AFMA. I certainly support the views of these fishermen and will be raising it again. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! In accordance with standing order 275A, the time for members' statements has concluded. The Main Committee will now consider government business.Bills13160r96213160Debate resumed from 24 November, on motion by Mr Williams:That the bill be now read a second time.09:59:0013160Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERRRH4DenisonALP00—The opposition will be proposing amendments which, in effect, remove all the provisions of the National Crime Authority Amendment Bill 1999 which have been proposed by the government and substitute other words. At the consideration in detail stage, I will be moving those amendments. Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg your indulgence as there will be some need for occasional discussions with the government and its advisers in relation to these matters. There has been a series of meetings to clarify the final draft of these amendments that will accommodate the interests of both the opposition and the government. If I break away from this address to speak with the government advisers to simply settle that last matter, I would be seeking your indulgence in that respect. The reasons for this will become clear as I speak.The National Crime Authority was established to provide an instrument for Commonwealth law enforcement which would be provided with powers greater than those which are customarily provided to police forces at either a national or a state level. It was established to be able to accommodate both references that were provided by the Commonwealth government and references that essentially focused largely on matters of state concerns. The common element that linked matters that could be the subject of investigation by the National Crime Authority was that they had to be serious crimes—the nature of those crimes is set out in the NCA legislation—and there had to be something in the nature of an organised activity in relation to them. The National Crime Authority was established with that particular focus to be the Australian body with powers which were extraordinary amongst the law enforcement community, in recognition that the threats to our society through organised crime required us to adopt measures beyond those which had hitherto been associated with the powers of state and Commonwealth police.It is fair to say that, when the organisation was established, there was a very large degree of concern that an agency of this nature, being given extraordinary powers, should also be subjected to the continuing and rigorous scrutiny of this parliament. There were those in the community who felt that organisations of this kind posed a threat to civil liberties. As part of the way in which the legislation was established, a joint parliamentary committee of this House and the Senate was established to make recommendations to the parliament in relation to the operations of the National Crime Authority. The Commonwealth was given the power to appoint the chair of the authority, but the states' police ministers in one instance and attorneys in another had to be consulted in relation to the other two appointments of the authority. The act was constructed in such a way as to ensure that, where powers were given to the authority, they were given expressly by this parliament.An example of the thinking of the time would be the following words in the report by the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs on the National Crime Authority Bill in 1983:. . . the Committee is of the view that where powers, functions and duties are to be given to this Authority, they should be granted and limited in express terms. If this approach is adopted, the likelihood of the Parliament's intended purposes being cut back in the courts and the need for remedial ad hoc legislation will be minimised. That is the approach which this parliament has adopted consistently through the life of the organisation.In terms of those matters which could be dealt with by the interlinked jurisdiction that was provided to the NCA to deal with state matters, the intention of the parliament was that state parliaments could confer powers, authorities and duties on the NCA which were of the same nature as those which the Commonwealth parliament had seen fit to give to the authority. For example, if the Commonwealth parliament gave to the National Crime Authority the power to have its operatives undertake telephone interceptions for the purposes of offences which were of their nature Commonwealth matters, states could give to the authority similar powers in relation to state offences which were also addressed by the act and described in the act as relevant criminal activity. Relevant criminal activity was that serious criminal activity which had an organised element to it.That is the basis upon which the authority operated, and it did so by virtue of the provisions of section 55A of the act which provide:(1) It is hereby declared to be the intention of the Parliament that the operation of a provision of a law of a State that:(a) confers a power or function, or imposes a duty on the Authority or on a Judge of the Federal Court, being a power, function or duty that is also conferred or imposed by this Act; or(b) vests jurisdiction in the Federal Court in a matter in which jurisdiction is also invested in that Court by this Act;is not prevented or limited by reason of the provisions made in this act.And it goes on:(2) It is also declared to be the intention of the Parliament that, except as otherwise declared by the regulations, the Authority and the Judges of the Federal Court may, in addition to the powers, functions and duties conferred or imposed on it or them by this Act, have similar powers, functions and duties conferred or imposed on it or them by a law of a State.The framework was set up so that, if a power was given to the NCA under the NCA Act, the states could enact complementary legislation, and that would not offend section 109. But there was a caution in that process because it reserved to the Commonwealth minister a discretion to pass regulations to cut that back.The concern of the Commonwealth draftsman in the early days was to say, `This is such an extraordinary allocation of powers to an investigative body that we want to make certain that if a state vests certain authorities or powers in the NCA, even if they are of the kind that the Commonwealth has provided, there is a residual capacity of the Commonwealth minister to say that that is inappropriate and to make regulations to cut that back further yet.'The problem that arose, I understand, and why this amendment is before the House, is because, in advice to the Queensland government, the Queensland Crown Solicitor suggested that the words in section 55A did not adequately reflect the intention of the parliament. The Crown Solicitor drew attention to the words `by this Act' in that section and said that it was possible that one interpretation a court might hold in relation to the operation of section 55A was that unless the Commonwealth powers that related to the operations of the NCA were conferred directly by the National Crime Authority Act they were then not able to be exercised. That was a difficulty because, over time, the Commonwealth parliament has seen fit to address the powers of the NCA by measures in other legislation. For example, controlled operations legislation is addressed in a different act, and yet those powers are, through that, vested in the National Crime Authority.I understand that the Joint Statutory Committee on the National Crime Authority was advised in relation to that advice—certainly it was only put to that committee on the faint basis that it might have some possible legal force. But I also understand that as a consequence of that the minister's office was told of that advice and sought legal advice from its own advisers.In due course, I am told, the minister's office received advice, first to the effect that the Queensland Solicitor's opinion was unlikely to be held to be a correct interpretation of the law, but then further and more senior advice was sought and it was conceded that at least it was strongly arguable that such a case could be made. So the government was presented with a dilemma of how to address this because, since the establishment of the NCA it, and this parliament and its committees and every minister including me, had been proceeding on the basis that states were entitled to confer similar powers and authorities on the NCA as the Commonwealth had seen fit to confer.The government then reflected on how to address this matter. Where difficulty arose was that the government did not choose simply to address this matter but also addressed an issue on a much broader basis. It proposed legislation which, as the Attorney's second reading speech makes plain, made clear that the states can confer such powers, duties and functions without the need for the National Crime Authority Act to specifically contain similar provisions, but which did not have any limits that would have contained the powers that the Commonwealth parliament had seen fit to confer, either directly or indirectly, on the National Crime Authority.That would have in a sense meant that we unshackled the National Crime Authority from the supervision and management of this parliament, and it would have meant that any state parliament could have passed a law conferring a new power or a new duty on the National Crime Authority. For example, say it emerged that a state passed a forensic procedures legislation act. We have not yet conferred such power on the National Crime Authority but, were a state to have passed a forensic procedures act which, for example, authorised the National Crime Authority in the course of its work to take involuntary body samples of various kinds from persons suspected of a crime, that would automatically have come within the repertoire of matters that the National Crime Authority had power to undertake.Even more significantly, it would have also allowed states to impose duties on the National Crime Authority. Were they to do so, that would have perhaps redirected the National Crime Authority from purposes which were those mutually agreed by the Commonwealth and the states to those which were directed by a state alone. One could easily imagine, for example, a state deciding to vest in the National Crime Authority the duty to investigate any instance of a police killing. It could have been entirely a proper matter, but it could have gone to any matter where the state felt that it wanted the additional powers that the National Crime Authority is given to be applied to state purposes.That would have unshackled and unbolted the National Crime Authority from the supervision and control of the national government. It certainly would have meant that we would have had ongoing concerns about the degree to which new and undebated powers were being vested in the authority. It would have given rise to fears in the community that the organisation was potentially out of control because it was not even subject to the supervision of the national parliament.It would have presented the NCA with a new and unpredictable range of duties to be included on its menu of operational tasks without the guarantee of funding—only the Commonwealth government would provide the funding base—to sustain those new responsibilities and duties. Of course, some of those duties may have been duties that we, as Commonwealth parliamentarians, would never have envisaged or thought proper for the authority to have vested in them.When this matter arose as a bill, I was extremely alarmed and concerned by it, and the time frame was very tough. The bill was introduced last week. It was presented to us for our assent on the basis that the government was seeking passage, before the end of this parliament and before the Christmas session was finished, as uncontroversial legislation, because that is the only basis on which it could pass through the Main Committee and then the Senate. In the form it was presented to us, we plainly regarded it not only as a controversial matter but also a highly controversial matter, and one which was entirely inconsistent with the way in which this Commonwealth parliament has dealt with the authority since 1983.It was also a situation in which the opposition did not wish to act irresponsibly. Once the bill went on the Notice Paper, it was essentially an announcement to all the world that there was at least an arguable proposition that matters that had been undertaken in state references for some time might be the subject of legal challenge. It was in no-one's interest that that be allowed to emerge. Even though it was never the intention of this parliament to do otherwise than facilitate states to confer on the Commonwealth the same range of powers, functions and duties as the Commonwealth would have on the NCA, if there had been a series of legal challenges initiated and part heard, it would be a more complex debate if we were to address this in the early part of next year, because people might claim that some vested legal rights were involved, and there are a whole range of reasons why that would have been a most unsatisfactory outcome.We were caught in a situation, on the one hand, where, for proper policy reasons, public interest reasons, the opposition was anxious to ensure that we did not give comfort to those who wished to damage the reputation and operation of the National Crime Authority for acting in accordance with the understanding that both sides of this House, former ministers of all colours and the joint committee had had in relation to the way in which the act should operate. On the other hand, the opposition was quite unwilling to entertain the extension of powers that the government was proposing, and with very little time in which to deal with these issues.I sought and obtained authority from the shadow ministry to the effect that I was authorised to negotiate a more appropriate amendment which would limit the proposal to those changes which were the intention of both sides of this parliament when section 55 was first introduced. From that basis, we entered discussions with the government. In that course, the minister was also kind enough to facilitate the opportunity for me to have discussions with Mr Gary Crooke, the chair of the National Crime Authority.I raised with Mr Crooke my concerns about the broadening of the proposed amendment beyond that which was necessary to conform to the original intentions of the parliament. Mr Crooke indicated to me that he shared those concerns and that he had had little to do with the drafting of the legislation. I make no criticism of this because plainly this has been an exercise where the government has sought to quickly deal with an issue which has arisen. I think there are some lessons for the future—on a matter like this the process ought to have more carefully involved the National Crime Authority and the opposition. To have to deal with it in such a short period of time did present enormous difficulties for my colleagues with the parliamentary timetable and then subsequently in the drafting of the legislation.I also took the opportunity to have conversations with others who had long experience with the National Crime Authority. We were satisfied that, if we were able to persuade the government to accept a narrow amendment which would simply put the authority in the place where we had all thought it to be, and probably still is—the legal advice is by no means certain that it is not already in this position—we would be able to find agreement, the matter could go through, and the spectre that there may be some people, either in the course of current investigations or who have been the subject of investigations and who have been convicted in relation to these processes, who might opportunistically take advantage of what is a technical but unmeritorious argument that that could not happen. So on that basis we proceeded.At first the government did seek to persuade us that their bill was consistent with the intention of the parliament when the NCA legislation was first before it. We were not persuaded. We think that was wrong, and I regret those representations being made because (a) a lot of time was wasted trying to go through the parliamentary record to see whether there was any plausible justification for that proposition, and (b) it was not necessary. I am long enough in the tooth in this place to not be persuaded by an argument of that nature when it is plainly false. But that said, we eventually reached a point where we agreed in principle.For the last day and a bit I have had the opportunity of sitting down with ministerial and departmental advisers trying to find words which clearly address the specific matter in terms with which the parliament would be satisfied and which the opposition and the government can both say achieves the necessary objectives. We have also been engaged with the minister's office in other matters, some of which have been of a rather tense and prickly nature. So I suppose it is a reflection on the capacity of good sense for the minister, me and our officers to put those issues aside and not become distracted when there is a serious matter for parliamentary attention.We now have a form of words which were settled as late as this morning—about 15 minutes before we came into this place—and I think they will clearly do the job. I know that the minor parties in the Senate have shared some of the concerns that we had. I want to indicate that my office has had discussions with some of those minor parties in which we sought to say that, as we have now reached agreement, we do not believe that the measures before this House warrant anything other than speedy passage.We hope that that course is followed, once it has been dealt with by this committee, in the Senate processes as well, so that we do not have the prospect of this technical argument remaining open throughout the long Christmas break, which might give rise to speculative but unmeritorious legal proceedings.I think it is very important for us to come back to the principle in relation to the National Crime Authority. I did seek to say to the government that I understood the need for some urgency in this case. I regretted the fact that they had known of this for some months and only came to us late last week. There is a common interest across all parties in the House in relation to this legislation. I do not think there is a need for that kind of practice. But I do think there is a fundamental position that was summed up by the Senate report—that if we are giving powers, functions or duties to the authority we want them to be given in express and clear terms and we want to keep control of that process in the federal parliament.Recommendations have been made by the joint committee about other changes to the National Crime Authority legislation. The opposition has called on the government to make many changes. It believes that the National Crime Authority Act needs to be substantially addressed. We want to be able to work cooperatively. We are, of course, in a political contest and from time to time will argue the toss about various matters. Publicly I have been very strongly of the opinion that the current minister, the Minister for Justice and Customs, has dragged her feet in relation to some very important changes that have been identified by the joint committee and by the chair of the National Crime Authority. They have been the subject of substantial publicity; yet have not been the subject of legislation before the House.I do not want to resile from that. Those are the sorts of points that good opposition pursues, and we will continue to pursue those kinds of matters and to urge that the House have before it legislation that more comprehensively, properly and in a modern way addresses the capacities and powers of the authority. But we want that control to be in this parliament. At the end of the day, this parliament has to make sure that it is the guardian and makes judgments about what it is proper or not proper to confer on such an important crime fighting organisation which does exercise these extraordinary powers.What has occurred in the course of this debate has been a good example of the necessity for effective opposition. I believe it would have been a very bad thing if the bill had passed in the form in which it was put forward, on what was a false representation that it reflected the intention of the parliament in the first place. In the run-up to Christmas it could have been quite possible that, with the various distractions, such an assertion would have been simply believed and we would have passed it in that form and then found states controlling the future powers and operations of the authority. So there is a place for vigilant opposition, and this process reflects it. (Time expired)10:29:0013165Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—A good government can only be enhanced by a good opposition. We certainly have in place a very good government, and on occasions we actually see some glimmer that comes from those opposite.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—Just a glimmer.CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVE—Just a glimmer. It is certainly good to see the opposition embarking upon a different strategy other than just opposition for opposition's sake. We welcome particularly the positive contribution made by the member for Denison, because he does bring to this discussion a deal of experience, having been a minister. Having served with him on the joint statutory committee which oversights the National Crime Authority, I know that he has a great, heartfelt passion for getting some results from this very important crime fighting body.The matter before us today, including the amendment which will be moved officially by the honourable member for Denison during the consideration in detail, is very much about giving the National Crime Authority some certainty and some of the additional tools which it thought it had until a recent inquiry conducted by the joint committee found there may have been a glitch in the original legislation. We have before us an example, simply, of parliament at its best: a parliamentary committee conducts an inquiry into matters relating to powers in regard to controlled operations of law enforcement bodies and unearths something that goes to the heart of and may threaten the legitimacy of this key activity, and then the government moves quickly to arrest this circumstance so that someone else does not discover it and exploit it, trying perhaps to obtain a finding that some past prosecutions and investigations have been invalidated as a result of the committee finding this chink in the armour, so to speak. One of the things which this bill does is to validate any prosecutions and investigations in the past that may have relied on state powers insofar as controlled operations are concerned.We are seeing another good aspect of the parliament too: the opposition has recognised that the virtues of the bills can be enhanced by the amendment it has proposed today, in the hope of a cooperative and deliberate response, and the government will have no problem at all—given the level of cooperation that has existed between the opposition and the government on this matter in recent days, in particular as late as 9.20 a.m. when this draft was completed—in accepting this consistent and sensible amendment. It will qualify and quantify the powers and provide some security and certainty for the law officers who are out there doing the very best job they can to protect us all from the effect of crime.I have to say, reflecting upon what the member for Denison said in his contribution today, that perhaps there could have been an additional role for the Joint Statutory Committee on the National Crime Authority to consider the detail of the amendment that we have before us before we went through what the member for Denison called the almost farcical process of confrontation being put aside for cooperation. As an example, Minister Vanstone put a draft bill before the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, asking the committee to investigate, I think, powers in relation to the bribery of public officials. That was a very good circumstance: a minister of the Crown said, `This is what our proposed bill is. It relates to a treaty. There is a standing committee on treaties.' The treaties committee's investigation of that treaty matter, based on what the government's intention was, resulted in a very good bill that was agreed to by both sides.I am sure that, particularly at Christmas—this very forgiving time of year—a lot of people would applaud the fact that the parliament is working in a constructive way and not in a destructive way. The rivalry of politics can produce an excellent result, as I am sure we will see with the passing of this legislation.It is important for all of us in this place to recognise that criminals will always try to stay one step ahead of the law. Our law enforcement officers are always going to be the ones playing catch-up with respect to the rules and regulations which govern their activities as they investigate crime and enforce the law. It is a fact that technology and any faults that might exist in our law will be found first by criminals. The war against drugs is an important aspect of the work of the National Crime Authority. It is a matter of organised criminal activity in this country that affects us all, whether we realise it or not—be it through the additional insurance premiums we pay because homes are broken into and things are stolen or through the direct impact upon our families. The war against drugs is an important one and has been a priority of the Howard government, with additional funding and resources being placed in that area. It is a matter that the National Crime Authority are obviously deeply involved in in a lot of different ways—through intelligence gathering and through covert operations from which they are able to gather information which can not only affect prosecutions but also thwart the distribution of drugs.I will bring this right down to a very basic example. Just the other week, in Mayfield Road, Moorooka, in my electorate, a lady went to the NAB automatic teller at 10 to six in the morning to withdraw some money. She was going to the newsagent around the corner to buy a paper and a few scratchies.RH4KERRMr Kerr—What were you doing up at that time?CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVE—I was actually up about an hour or so later at the newsagent's, who told me all about it. We are a very hardworking lot up in our part of the world in the electorate of Moreton. I deserve a vote, so thank you very much for that. That endorsement from the member for Denison could be very handy in the next election campaign.The woman was using the automatic teller in broad daylight—we do not have daylight saving up there, thank heavens—when a car pulled up. Two people jumped out and assaulted her in an attempt to steal money at that time of the morning in suburban Brisbane. There is no doubt in the minds of people in my area that that sort of crime has happened too often. An elderly bloke using the Westpac automatic teller in Moorooka—the same suburb—was bashed. Everyone believes that that was, again, a drug-related crime and is very concerned about that. So the work of the National Crime Authority—in particular, as I said at the beginning of my contribution, the work of the National Crime Authority's parliamentary oversight committee—is very much focused on trying to ensure that people feel safer in the streets as a result of effective law enforcement.This bill comes as a result of the work of the committee. The committee has made a number of other recommendations in its Street legal report, which was tabled in the parliament earlier this week. There are a lot of matters that are worthy of consideration by the government. I look forward to the minister giving some serious consideration in the new year to the work and findings of the committee to ensure that there are adequate legislative arrangements and that there is a much broader set of possibilities—though we must always be conscious of the civil liberty checks—for the proper use of covert operations. As I said, the criminals will always take the next step before law enforcement will. We are always playing catch-up. It is important that this bill is passed quickly. It is important that the parliament repeats the exercise that we have had here, because this war against drugs is something that we cannot have enough tools to fight with.One statistic really struck me as frightening during the course of that inquiry. The Queensland Crime Commission found that law enforcement recovers only about 1.3 per cent of the heroin that is available annually on the Queensland market. I am sure the member for Fisher, who is another Queensland member, would be stunned to think that, despite the very best efforts of our law enforcement officials, we are finding only 1.3 per cent of heroin on the Queensland market. That is a frightening statistic. Across the nation the various laws regarding covert operations are, at best, patchy. New South Wales and South Australia have enacted controlled operations legislation, and the schemes are different from the Commonwealth regime in a number of aspects, but in Queensland there is no legislation at all. So the certainty that is provided by this amendment to the National Crime Authority Act that we are discussing today is very important. I make no apologies at all to the House for relating it directly back to people in my electorate, because that is the reason I joined the National Crime Authority parliamentary committee. I admire the academic brilliance of the member for Denison and other learned lawyers whose training—0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—You don't have to overdo it!CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVE—I shall not go overboard. People in my area—and I am sure in yours as well, Madam Deputy Speaker—who are involved in Neighbourhood Watch and are partners in the fight against crime need to know that this place is working strongly with all of those committed to fighting crime. This bill before us today is another example of the commitment of the Commonwealth, of the federal government, to making sure that the efforts of Neighbourhood Watch, people on the streets who are trying to protect themselves and enhance their local communities, have been supported. So I commend the bill and I look forward to the amendment being passed.10:41:0013168Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—It is really reassuring to see that the spirit of Christmas is pervading the Main Committee on the second last sitting day of the parliament for this year. I would like to thank honourable members who have participated in the debate for their contributions and, in particular, I recognise the shadow minister and the honourable member for Moreton.I am acutely conscious of the unusual circumstances surrounding this bill and the difficult issues which it requires us to address. Because of these circumstances, I would like to take just slightly longer than usual to thank those who have been involved. As has been indicated by other speakers in other debates, in the parliament we are often confrontational. The opposition tends to oppose what the government seeks to achieve for opposition's sake but it is overlooked that, on very many occasions, the opposition and the government are able to sit down and work out sensible reforms which are for the good of the Australian people. This of course is one of those occasions. The honourable member for Denison, the shadow minister for justice, has certainly participated constructively, as is reflected in the opposition amendment to which the government will agree.I want to place on public record the thanks of the Minister for Justice and Customs to the shadow minister and his staff for their input to this bill. I am also advised that keen appreciation should be expressed for the hospitality that he extended to those who participated in a number of meetings in his office to resolve the issues involved.CK6HARDGRAVEMr Hardgrave—It is Christmas.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—I regret that I was not given an invitation but perhaps another time! It is also important to note the involvement of the Chairman of the National Crime Authority, Mr Gary Crooke QC, from Queensland. Mr Crooke, with the agreement of the Minister for Justice and Customs, made himself available to discuss the problem that section 55A presented for the authority, and Mr Crooke's willingness to provide a briefing of this kind was certainly appreciated by the government.The honourable member for Denison suggested in his speech that Mr Crooke had said that the NCA had not been involved in drafting the bill. My advice is that the National Crime Authority was included and consulted on the drafting of the bill at all times. Much of the development of the provisions of the bill was conducted at officer level by the Attorney-General's Department and also was included the Special Counsel to the National Crime Authority, Mac Boulton, as well as the chairman himself, Mr Crooke, when his workload permitted. I would also like to record our appreciation of the work done by two officers of the department—Ms Liz Atkins and Ms Louise McSorley—in the carriage of this difficult task. This project, as honourable members would understand, has required long and intensive hours of effort. Both have worked in a manner that does credit to themselves and to the department.The honourable member for Denison, when he spoke, suggested that the original bill unshackled the National Crime Authority from the supervision of this parliament. I just want to place on record that the National Crime Authority Act does give the Commonwealth the power to disallow by regulation such conferral of states' powers. The National Crime Authority and the states would have been under the supervision of this parliament even without the amendment which is being proposed by the honourable member for Denison.It ought to be noted that there are other accountability measures as well, such as the parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority, the Intergovernmental Committee on the National Crime Authority and Senate estimates. However, I do acknowledge the genuine concerns of the opposition and, as I point out, the government is prepared to accept them.The honourable member for Denison also sought to criticise—blotting his previous unblemished record—the Minister for Justice and Customs by suggesting that in some way she was dragging her feet with respect to other of the committee recommendations for amendment. I am advised that the government has considered these suggestions but is bound to consult the states and territories on the amendments, as the honourable member for Denison would be well aware.The National Crime Authority scheme is, after all, a national scheme, and the support of states and territories is very necessary. That is why there has to be an extensive consultative process with the states and the territories, and upon receiving all the feedback the government will certainly look at further amendments.I would also like to recognise publicly the exemplary performance of the honourable member for Moreton on the joint standing committee. That committee, as he pointed out, carries out very important responsibilities. The member for Denison has welcomed the bill and the manner in which it is expected to improve the operation and effectiveness of the National Crime Authority, and the government clearly shares his concern that this bill receives a speedy passage in the other place.This bill will ensure in a fair manner that the work of the National Crime Authority is protected. I do urge our colleagues in the Senate to recognise the way in which the House of Representatives, through the Main Committee, has dealt with this very important and urgent legislation. I would ask them to emulate our example. I commend the bill to the chamber.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.13169Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.10:47:0013169Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERRRH4DenisonALP00—I move:(1) Schedule 1, items 1 and 2, page 3 (lines 5 to 9), omit the items, substitute:1 Subsection 55A(2)Repeal the subsection, substitute:(2) It is also declared to be the intention of the Parliament that, in addition to the powers, functions and duties (the Commonwealth powers, functions and duties ) conferred or imposed on the Authority or the Judges of the Federal Court by this or any other Act: (a) the Authority, or those Judges, may, except as otherwise declared by the regulations, have conferred or imposed on it or them, by a law of a State, powers, functions and duties (the State powers, functions and duties ) of the same kinds as the Commonwealth powers, functions and duties; and (b) the State powers, functions and duties may relate to the investigation of any relevant criminal activity, whether or not the Commonwealth powers, functions and duties relate to the investigation of that activity.I would like to say a couple of things in relation to this amendment. Firstly, the amendment reflects an agreed text that has been the subject of substantial discussion between the government and the opposition, and I hope it will be the form of legislation that is passed through this House and the Senate before the end of this sitting. I have a couple of remarks to make, relevant to the amendment, about the suggestion that this parliament would have retained control over the process had the bill proceeded in its original form. The suggestion was that, because there would be a power to make regulations to disapply state laws which gave additional powers, duties or responsibilities to the NCA, in a sense that would have retained the supervisory role of this parliament. In truth it would not. The only person who can make a regulation is the minister, so it would have left it to the executive to determine whether any matter was beyond that which this parliament would have wished to have conferred.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—It would be subject to supervision by the parliament.RH4Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERR—If the minister made no regulation, there is no prospect to disapply. Essentially, it would have meant that this parliament surrendered that. It decoupled the parliamentary control of the National Crime Authority from this parliament.The second point I would like to make is that there is a danger in these kinds of areas where there is such strong public concern about crime. I do not think anyone would dissociate themselves from the sorts of concerns the member for Moreton has raised, but where there are such strong concerns there is a temptation to overreach. Unless we examine each and every proposal that is put forward with rigour, we are in danger of assenting to legislation which goes beyond that which we ought to assent to.Whilst we have exercised an entirely proper and cooperative role in relation to this legislation, there is another package of legislation put forward by the government in the customs area which, again, we were asked to pass before Christmas. I believe it needs very extensive community consultation because the measures do offend against many of the things that we, as a community, have taken to be very important for the whole period of this Federation. We are not doing ourselves proper service as parliamentarians if we respond to community concern that legitimately exists simply by saying, `We will be criticised if we stand in the way of this particular measure or that particular measure put forward by the government,' because that surrenders our judgment to the sentiment of the mob, and that is not acceptable.I think that we will find this tested from time to time as we go forward in the next few years. There are some very contentious measures which I believe the opposition will end up opposing—not because we are not concerned about the issues that are raised but because we do not believe that the particular measures are appropriate, nor do we want to go down the American model where essentially we escalate and crank up all the law enforcement side.We say we are fighting a war against drugs. We put more and more of our people in jail. We do not give proper emphasis to the other side of the equation of treatment and rehabilitation. We do not look at the options of whether or not some of our laws with respect to prohibition need examination. We do not look at various different options. We need to be willing to address the complex range of these issues in a complex and sophisticated way. Simply pouring on more and more law and order responses is not necessarily going to be for the better good of our community. (Extension of time granted)I say that in very general terms because with this legislation we are doing no more than assenting very properly to what this parliament has always intended. I think the Hawke government first introduced the National Crime Authority legislation, recognising that we did need to have an institution capable of coordinating intelligence and investigative roles between the Commonwealth and the states, giving it much more substantial investigative powers than are commonly vested in the police because of the threat that arises through organised crime. Those two positions are not inconsistent. The need for proper measures is not inconsistent with our concern to make certain we do not overstep the mark and that, when we are confronted with community concern, we do not simply assent to a whole range of measures which quite improperly transcend the boundaries which are appropriate for the kind of society that we wish to be.I did enjoy the constructive work of the minister's advisers and her departmental advisers. We were working under considerable pressures. The relationships that have been established, not only in this but in other discussions we have had on the technical and administrative side of the portfolio, have always been conducted with great goodwill. I place on record my appreciation of the work of Dr John Nation. Although he was not present in all these meetings, he made certain that every reasonable request we put forward was facilitated.Finally, I should say, lest what I have said in the debate previously be thought to reflect ill of the chair of the National Crime Authority, that it may have been my misapprehension of what I understood to be his position. I certainly took from what he told me that he had himself not been deeply involved in the drafting process. I am not suggesting that the NCA itself had not been engaged in working through that process. He did seem to assent to the proposition that the extension of jurisdiction and the capacity of the states to vest additional duties on the authority itself was not what he had intended by way of a closure of this matter. I took it, if one could crudely paraphrase the way this happened, that the government needed to take an inch but sought to take a mile, and that was not being driven by the NCA. That may have been a misapprehension on my part and I certainly do not want to put the chair in any position of embarrassment in relation to that conversation. I was simply—0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—Why didn't you tell them you said it?RH4Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERR—I certainly do not want to because, as I said in my original remarks, I meant no reflection of wrong conduct on him, the advisers or the drafters of this provision, because in a sense I am certain this was all done with the overarching objective of dealing with it before the end of the Christmas period. I am certain there must have been discussions where some people were involved and other discussions where other people were involved—as is the nature of these things. The discussion with the chair of the NCA was facilitated by Dr Nation in order that I would understand the reasons why we needed to address these particular amendments. I think I have accommodated everything that was sought of me by the chair of the National Crime Authority in relation to what was asserted to be essential. In the end, we have reached a position where, between the government and the opposition, a satisfactory outcome in difficult circumstances has been achieved.I thank the parliamentary secretary at the table. I should also thank the minister. I am certain that through her good offices all of this was facilitated administratively. I do indicate to her officers and advisers that any time they want the best cappuccino or short black, we have the only coffee machine in a parliamentary office, courtesy of my staff member, George Haddad, who has given exemplary service in this regard also. (Time expired)10:57:0013172Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—As I said in my summing up speech, I want to thank honourable members for their contributions, in particular the shadow minister. The government proposed this amendment bill to confirm what had been understood by the Commonwealth and the states as the meaning of section 55A. As the chamber would be aware, the honourable member for Denison expressed concerns to the minister about making sure that the ability of the states to confer powers on the National Crime Authority was strictly circumscribed.The government was not as concerned, given the excellent working history between the Commonwealth and the states on matters relating to the National Crime Authority. It is clearly a shining example of federalism at work: the Commonwealth, the states and the territories legislating and working together to achieve a national result.When speaking a moment ago, the member for Denison referred to the chairman of the National Crime Authority. What I said in my summing up speech was that much of the development of the amendment bill was conducted at officer level, involving officers of the Attorney-General's Department and also the Special Counsel to the National Crime Authority, Mac Boulton. The chairman himself was involved as his workload permitted.The other point I want to make briefly refers to the suggestion by the member for Denison that, in the absence of the amendment, if a state referred inappropriate powers to the National Crime Authority the Commonwealth would not have any supervision over it if the minister chose not to enact a regulation. Given the oversight of government activities by the Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority and the Intergovernmental Committee on the National Crime Authority, no doubt pressure would be brought to bear on the minister of the day to bring in such a regulation if, indeed, the states sought to refer inappropriate powers.But, having said that, the government is quite happy with the amendment moved by the honourable member for Denison. The amended bill will confirm the ability of the states to confer powers, duties and functions on the National Crime Authority. That conferral of powers by the states may extend to the investigation of any relevant criminal activity, provided there is Commonwealth legislation conferring powers of the same kind. As I said before, the government wants to thank the shadow minister and his staff for their cooperation, and I want to place on record again the thanks of the minister to her staff. This is an excellent bill; it is an excellent outcome. We hope the Senate gives the matter similar priority.Amendment agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.Ordered that the bill be reported to the House with an amendment.Committees131721317213172Debate resumed from 22 November, on motion by Mr Pyne:That the House take note of the paper.11:01:0013172McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—I welcome the opportunity to speak to the motion that the House take note of the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Procedure entitled It's your House: community involvement in the procedures and practices of the House of Representatives and its committees . I take the opportunity to congratulate all those on the committee who have been involved in the development of this quite important report. They have done an important job in terms of the short-term interests of continuing to reform and improve the performance of the House and, as part of the longer term function, of enhancing the standing of the parliament in the eyes of Australians.The parliament is suffering from the stress that most major national institutions in Australia and in other Western countries are facing from a declining respect for principal institutions. For that we should not reflect upon the people. If people's respect for these institutions is declining, it is those of us in the institutions who have to look at what we are doing. We should not say, `Why is it that the people do not understand what a wonderful job we are doing?' In a democracy, we need to respond to the concern that they are articulating.In case we lapse into the comfortable feeling that it does not matter, I use the example, that I think is capable of powerful argument, of the sudden rise of One Nation and that ugly face of democratic process here. Similar experiences in other Western countries could in large measure be attributed to the alienation that many Australians felt, and feel, from mainstream politics. It is important that members of the House and the parliament as a whole give serious attention to questions about the processes: their openness, their accessibility and their appropriateness to the coming 21st century and its demands and expectations.I particularly want to congratulate and thank my colleague the member for Chifley. That is not to reflect on the other members of the committee, because I am sure they all participated equally and diligently in the committee deliberations. To the extent that the limitations of the privileges of that committee allowed, the member for Chifley has been discussing these issues with me in my capacity as Manager of Opposition Business for some time. He has been a force for progress in these matters. I thank him for that; it has been very helpful to me.The views I express, even though I am Manager of Opposition Business and essentially responsible for these issues on behalf of the opposition, are mine. This is not the opposition's position; this is not a formal position. It is one that I want to outline as someone who has a continuing interest in parliamentary reform and who has spoken on this matter in the past, not so much inside the parliament as outside. I know it is easier to express support for reform of the parliament from opposition than from government, particularly in the House of Representatives where the chamber tends to be structured to facilitate the business of the executive. When you are in the executive, you think that is terrific, and when you are not, you do not think so.I am one of those people who has structured his political career in a perverse way. I spent eight years in government in the Senate and nearly four years now in opposition in the House of Representatives. Most people would say, `That's back to front; you ought to be in the executive in the House and in the opposition in the Senate.' It does give me some perception of the executive and parliamentary functions and the Senate and the House of Representatives functions. I do not want to indulge in humbug and say that this is all very easy. I know the pressures of executive government and the constraints. The idea that you should facilitate things that might impede the capacity of the executive to implement its intentions is never welcome. It is difficult to strike a balance between the accountability demands of the parliament and, in my view, of the public and the governability demands of the executive, which the public also wants. That is not a contradiction. Both are reasonable demands and both need to be addressed. The House, which is so much more the creature of the executive and will remain so, needs to accommodate that different imperative. The Senate accommodates it differently because of its different pressures.I want to indicate my serious interest in these matters and my support for some of the issues the committee has raised and to suggest that we might need to go beyond some of the things the committee has done in the process. I want, particularly, to focus relatively briefly on those aspects of the report that relate to petitions and the operation of the committee system. I will try to limit my remarks a little to facilitate debate by colleagues.I very much welcome the fact that the committee has turned its attention to the circumstance of petitions. I was interested to note and somewhat alarmed by the statistical presentation in the report about the dramatic decline in the presentation of petitions. I think that is something we should contemplate. My concern is with the way in which the parliament—not just the House of Representatives—deals with petitions dated prior to seeing that data, and I have spoken on it before. I think we need to take that process more seriously in our democracy. The process by which petitions are gathered is important—the committee refers to that, and I congratulate members of the committee for it—but the way in which the parliament responds is also important. The committee is starting to address the question of improving the way the parliament deals with petitions and the standing orders governing the way petitions need to be presented, which are steps forward. I essentially support the thrust of what the committee has recommended on those matters.The one thing I was disappointed in—and I know it is difficult—is the committee's response to electronic petitions. It is not easy. Since this is our first bite at it, maybe we have to say, `At this stage, it is a bit too difficult.' The arguments have been outlined in the report. The authentication arguments in the report are serious but the question needs to be raised. We cannot intelligently go far into the next century without addressing this modern form of communication. People do communicate their views; they accumulate and amass support for their views through this electronic medium, and the parliament has to respond. We should not respond in an ad hoc fashion. The committee has done us a service by raising it, but I hope that in its continuing consideration it might find a way in which we can start to accommodate this modern form of communication. That is a minor concern. I think the arguments the committee puts are intelligent reservations that need to be addressed. I am not immediately saying, `Let's leap to it,' but we cannot much longer not accommodate that point. Those are my views about petitions.I want to say something about the committee's recommendation about the way committees should engage with the broader community and, essentially, about an enhancement of the House of Representatives function. I have always regarded and described the House of Representatives as much more of a legislative insititution than the Senate is—as the executive's chamber. We need to face up to the awkward reality that most of what outsiders would see as the orthodox legislative function—the scrutiny function—is performed in the Senate. In this committee we have just seen an example of where that is not always so. The way the NCA legislation was dealt with within this committee was a very good example of the legislative process in action, and I welcome and support that. I think it was well handled by both sides of the parliament.But the way in which the committee has gone about this raises important questions about three points, which I will mention briefly. They are about the way the executive government— and I do not mean particularly this government—responds to committee reports, ensuring that there is a prompt and public response and a process of saying to those dozens of people who make presentations before committees and spend a lot of time in making very substantial submissions that their time has been well spent because the parliament and the government have heard their views. We may not necessarily agree with their views, because usually you get contradictory submissions and you cannot agree with everyone—you do not do people a service if you pretend you are going to agree with everybody you listen to—but we have acknowledged their contribution. We have taken it seriously into account and we have given it a thoughtful response. I value what the committee has said about the response mechanism. I think it is an issue we need to address.The idea of more openness in the way in which committees get references is something I support, and the idea that there should be more focus on the relationship between the committees and the media is something we have to have regard to in the 21st century. If we want the people to know what is going on in the parliament, we have to accept the reality that they are not going to read it in the Hansard; they are going to get it through the ordinary channels of media communication which meet the information requirements of the busy modern information age. To some extent that can be done on the Net but I am mainly meaning the public broadcasting and newspaper outlets.The committee and the community aspects of the report I welcome and support. There are some things we can do further about reforming the operation of committees and about looking at the way the parliament as a whole—the House of Representatives and the Senate—scrutinises the performance of executive government so as to make it more efficient and effective, both in terms of informing the public and in terms of its powers of scrutiny to make the political and administrative arm of the executive government more accountable, while not making some of the ridiculous calls that are made now—more by Senate committees than House committees, I must say, where the same people report to the same committees four times in one year, when it could be more properly and more comprehensively done with a broader assessment once or twice a year.I have been involved in a committee—this was a Senate committee but, in the way that I would like to see things work, it might be done jointly—on which public servants were called before committees at 4 o'clock in the morning. That is almost an insult and a charade of accountability. We need to make it more efficient and more effective. I would like to see the committees of the House take a role in that, along with committees of the Senate.I think this is an important contribution to the immediate debate about improving the performance of the parliament and the longer term aspiration about lifting the standing of the parliament in the eyes of the public. I congratulate the members of the committee on their report. I give a clear indication that, were it to be my responsibility—as perhaps it might be—I would seek to initiate a positive response to at least some of those recommendations and that we might together continue the process of reforming the performance of the parliament—both the House of Representatives and the Senate. I support the motion.11:14:0013175Cameron, Ross, MPMr ROSS CAMERON3K6ParramattaLP10—It is a pleasure to follow the member for Fraser. I confess there is virtually nothing in his remarks with which I could find myself at variance—it was a characteristically considered contribution. I think it highlights the work of the parliament as a collaborative exchange of experience and creativity and a bipartisan approach to the problems of this place and of the nation, which regrettably is not often witnessed by the public at large.In speaking to this committee report entitled, It's your House: community involvement in the procedures and practices of the House of Representatives, let me say it is pleasing to see Ms Robyn Webber, the committee secretary, here in the chamber in her capacity as Clerk of the Main Committee. She also, in a multiskilled world, acts as secretary of the Standing Committee on Procedure and is responsible for much of the language in this report, which I think has been very well articulated and presented.I congratulate the committee chair, Chris Pyne, the member for Sturt, who I think has earned the respect of all members of the committee for the manner in which he has conducted the inquiry and the committee in general.Under the heading `Representative democracy,' the report begins with the statement:The size and complexity of modern societies such as Australia make direct government by the people acting collectively (the ideal of democracy) a practical impossibility. Western nations, such as Australia, have all adopted a representive form of democracy. Under our system of government the community exercises its collective will to select a group of people to form the Parliament and also decides which subgroup of the Parliament will be empowered to undertake the functions of government on the community's behalf.The question I want to address today is: to what extent are we achieving the ideals of democracy, and to what extent are we catering for the appetite for direct participation by the Australian people in the decisions which affect their lives?The report makes 32 recommendations covering subjects such as the lodging of petitions, what might be called citizen initiated questions, the right of reply by citizens, and the use of all available media to communicate and make accessible the information considered by the parliament. The final 19 recommendations relate to the working of parliamentary committees.Of course, our committee system and its strengthening is presented with the practical challenge that, under the Westminster model of responsible government, committees will never enjoy the sort of autonomy and independence which they can enjoy under the American directly elected president model in which the legislature has a life completely of its own beyond the executive. Nonetheless, there is a sense in which committees have a kind of apostolic role by going out to the four corners of the nation, taking evidence and listening to witnesses. In that sense it is a case of Mohammed going to the mountain, if you like. It enables us to go out and be among the Australian people and get their direct input. Therefore, it is important that we reflect on how those procedures can be improved.I want to express my sense of genuine appreciation for a number of the things the member for Fraser has said, and identify with those things. There is what some have described as a crisis of confidence in our public institutions, particularly the parliament. Perhaps `crisis' is too strong a word; nonetheless, there is a great deal of scepticism, of cynicism, of disillusionment among the Australian public towards their representative body. I think that is something that we ignore at our peril.I support the thrust of the report, which is that we must be more aggressive in finding means whereby the parliament can reconnect with the people it is intended to represent. Indeed, Samuel Huntington, the American scholar whose article entitled `The Clash of Civilisations'—subsequently made into a book—for Foreign Affairs Journal, said that the presence of representative institutions was one of the seven defining characteristics of Western civilisation. The others included classical heritage, the emergence of the individual, Christianity, the rule of law, Germanic languages, and this sustained presence of representative public institutions.So, for over 1,000 years, beginning with the guilds, we have had this instinct to select from our number a smaller representative group. That is one of the reasons why we have had this flexibility in Western nations. We have often managed to avoid violent revolution because we have recognised the appetite for participation, and where necessary we have extended the franchise.I do not want to overdramatise the point, but I wonder how the members of the House of Commons must have felt when they considered the great Reform Bill of 1832, which called for a big extension of the franchise. The more reactionary among them were saying that power ought to be concentrated in the hands of those who have traditionally held it—the aristocracy, the nobility, the landed gentry. But there was this appetite for greater participation by the community as a whole. In my view, it was an act of enlightened leadership at that moment. That is what leadership is about: recognising the moment, anticipating change, in the words of Gough Whitlam, and embracing the new and the future as opposed to clinging on to the past.It is my view that, because of the wisdom of the leadership at that time in 1832, with the passage of the Reform Bill, England avoided the revolutions of 1848 which swept the rest of Europe, because those national polities had calcified, had tended to keep the people at arm's length, had tended to restrict the franchise. So there are times when we have to look at the temper and the appetite of the community which we have the honour to represent and say that we perhaps have to give away more power.Indeed, M.K. Gandhi suggested that the greatest expression and highest form of power was to give it away. To some extent, that is what this report is about. It is about: how do we give the power of the parliament back to the people? Indeed, Edmund Burke, when looking at his response to both the American Revolution and the French Revolution, was mindful of this. He got up in the House of Commons and supported the rights of the American colonists to autonomy. I would like to read a couple of the remarks which he made at that time in his paper on conciliation with America. He said:. . . a third consideration concerning this object, which serves to determine my opinion on the sort of policy which ought to be pursued in the management of America, even more than its population and its commerce—I mean its temper and character. In this character of the Americans a love of freedom is the predominating feature, which marks and distinguishes the whole; and, as an ardent is always a jealous affection, your colonies become suspicious, restive, and untractable, whenever they see the least attempt to wrest from them by force, or shuffle from them by chicane, what they think the only advantage worth living for. This fierce spirit of liberty is stronger in the English colonies, probably, than in any other people of the earth . . . I suspect that is still true today. For example, the last referendum highlights to me the tension which we face and the urgency of reform. By that I mean that I think we did risk increasing the sense of cynicism which Australians feel by the fact that we were unable to present a model of republic to the community which they wanted to pass. My own wife, for example, who voted in a manner different from my own ballot on that occasion, expressed her deep frustration that there was not any other option on the table. She did not want the status quo but she did not want the option being presented to her. There was a feeling that this was, to use the expression of the member for Werriwa, an insider's model of the republic.I pay tribute, in this area of how we embrace and involve the wider Australian people, to the two people in this parliament who in my view have made the most original and brave contributions: Peter Reith and Mark Latham. Latham, again, presents a very considered critique in his concept of the third way. I will read some of his remarks made in this place after the referendum:. . . a fourth power is now necessary for those issues best determined by the direct participation of the people. The new politics is demanding the dispersal of power. The electorate, geared up with educational qualifications and mass information, wants to cut out the middleman. It wants to have a direct say in decision making, tipping the balance from representative democracy towards participatory democracy.Peter Reith has likewise published a number of papers, including `Direct democracy: the way ahead', which was published back in autumn 1994, and more recently `A republican no case'. At that time he talked about the emergence of `a new participatory ethic amongst the citizens of the 21st century'.Referring to an article in the Economist magazine, he said that this was the way of the next century and that we had to gear ourselves up and respond to it in a meaningful way. In an article in the Australian in 1994, Peter Reith said:Like other democracies in recent times Australia has become stricken with the cancerous growth of cynicism and a sense of alienation in many citizens. I do not believe Australians are apathetic by natural disposition. I think our apathy is a product of the system.That is what this report is addressing today. It is looking at how we can improve the system so that Australians feel a greater sense of ownership. This sense of ownership should go from the procedures of the House to the culture and even the architecture and art of the place. I note, for example, in the original brief for the design of Parliament House, which was presided over by the first chair of the National Capital Development Authority, Sir John Overall, that the design criteria included a requirement that:. . . the building would have to express in a symbolic way the unique national qualities, attributes, attitudes, aspirations and achievements of Australia.If we want to talk about the aspirations of Australians, what they are aspiring to are greater levels of participation. On one level, the parliamentary art collection may be regarded as a cosmetic thing. My view, like that of Giles Auty, is that, when the million Australians who pass through the doors of this building each year see this collection of twisted metal and household refuse which passes for an art collection, it has a jarring, alienating impact. I think it communicates to them that their elected representatives live in some foreign world detached from the aspirations and the feelings of ordinary Australians.In the two minutes remaining to me, I just want to say that I am supportive of the thrust of the report. I think many of its practical recommendations are worthy of support by the government. I am challenged on a much broader level by how we address this appetite for involvement in the Australian people. I am not satisfied that we are taking it as seriously as we should. I am aware of the growing sense of disrespect in which my own vocation and profession is held. Today that is perhaps more acute than normal with the announcement of an increase in remuneration, which I welcome and appreciate. Nonetheless, I acknowledge that there is this cynicism out there, and somehow we have got to turn it around.Perhaps a more meaningful look at direct democracy is the way to go. Laurie Oakes, in analysing this recent spate of expressions of interest in direct democracy, said, `After seeing the strength of the direct election push in this republic referendum, can anyone doubt that Australian voters, given half a chance, would seize with equal enthusiasm the opportunity to vote directly for proposed laws.' He was referring to the Californian practice of holding about a dozen public votes on particular bills before the House each sitting day.I agree with the member for Fraser that we ought to go down the track recommended in the report It's your House, but we ought to look at going substantially further. If we do, like those reformist parliamentarians in the House of Commons in 1832, we will be glad that we did.11:29:0013179Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—I would like to make a small contribution to this debate on the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Procedure. I thank the honourable member for Parramatta for a very thought provoking contribution to the take note debate. I particularly thank the member for Fraser, the Manager of Opposition Business. By his mere participation in this debate, I think he has satisfied us, at least on one side of the House, that this report and its recommendations will be taken seriously.I will start where the member for Fraser started and the member for Parramatta finished: an institution has to change and adapt to its environment. A failure to do so can, in the end, threaten the institution itself. At no time that I can recall has the parliament, or have members of parliament, been held in such low esteem by the people at large. This is very discomfiting for members of parliament but it is an issue that we ignore at our peril.I am not dismissive of the notion of allowing people to participate in legislation and involve themselves directly in the processes of the parliament. I am totally confident, however, that people feel that neither is their single voice heard nor can they impact on or influence change. I passionately disagree with that. We really need to allow greater participation in the processes of the parliament.The information about our parliament that people most commonly have is gained from question time, which shows parliament at its most confrontational. In a sense, we are daily presenting a poisonous image of the parliament which does not reflect the overwhelming majority of parliament's activity. It is for this reason that I am passionate about the committee system, which is the university of the parliament. It is where members of parliament get exposed to the best minds in the public service and in academia, and, in particular, get exposed to individuals. It is just as important, in terms of the committee's consideration of a proposition, to hear a citizen's opinion about an issue voiced informally for two or three minutes at a committee hearing as it is to hear the most learned presentation of the issues involved. That is why we need to open up the committee system, to lift the lid on it.Another advantage of the proposed change would be to demonstrate that 99 per cent of the committees work in a very bipartisan way. This report reflects that: the report is not enthusiastically embraced by every member, it does not reflect every member's aspiration about the issues, but it does encompass everyone, not in a lowest common denominator way but in such a way that we can move forward in this debate.Unfortunately, the standing orders tend to reflect an era when the telegraph was a prime form of communications and radio the sole form of electronic communications. All that has changed radically today. The more we can lift the lid on committees and—where a committee inquiry is of sufficient weight and there is sufficient public interest—let people see how committee members are responding to issues, what they are thinking, how they are arriving at their conclusions, the better the turn we will do everyone.This report recommends a significant change to standing orders. It draws to the attention of committees that, rather than merely reporting the machinery of a committee's activity—that is, the number of submissions received, what the schedule of hearings is, who is going to appear before it—committees are allowed, though not forced, to involve the media much more deeply than has been the practice. A committee can authorise a chairman, a deputy chairman, a single member, even all committee members to do so. It is up to the committee to make a decision about the level and depth of interaction with the media.We have had some significant reports where committees have deliberated long and hard about important issues affecting this nation, but the committee members have been silenced lest they break the standing order. If they do they are charged with a breach of the standing orders, and there is a whole machinery of disciplinary measures that go into determining who may have breached committee deliberations, et cetera. It does not reflect the modern era, the modern day.I have raised the issue, say, of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. It has a lot of briefings from significant people. We never let the public know who we are being briefed by. A lot of the work is very public, and that is the way it should be, but a lot of it is behind closed doors. There are good reasons for it, Mr Deputy Speaker Hollis; indeed, I have heard an occasional argument from you as to why this should be so. But what I am trying to say is that the price of this is that the public at large or the media never get to hear about what the committee is doing to inform itself of issues that are confronting it and that may be of great importance.I do not want to score any cheap points, but money talks. I have always regretted a couple of things. One is that when this government came to power it cut $10 million out of the committee system. I would like to say to you that the production of the work of committees is entirely dependent on the members of the committee. You know that not to be so; it is very dependent on the support committees receive. So if you are cutting back on the staff that support committees, ipso facto, you are affecting the output of the committees and the quality of the committees. Rather than investing less money in committees we should be investing more money into committees.I am not trying to say that it is only this government that has unclean hands on these issues—I think both governments have a lot to answer for. But, in the future, that is an issue that really needs to be addressed. I agree with the honourable member for Aston on a lot of things, but I never agreed with his Procedure Committee report into committees because it completely ignored this issue in a 10-year review of committees. In this Procedure Committee, not only should we be lifting the lid on committees, letting the public see the bipartisanship and the hard work that goes in by members of parliament, but we should also be increasing the resources.Part of the problem is the one that was alluded to by the member for Fraser. There are some ministers that make excellent use of the committee system in the House of Representatives for legislation. The Attorney-General is an outstanding example of that in relation to the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs—something that you may know a little about—and he is never backwards in referring legislation to the committee for it to look at, to get public input into and to report to the House. I commend him for it. But not all committees undertake that work. I think they should.In essence, it is a question of the balance of power between the executive—that is, the government of the day—and parliament as a legislature. That balance, under both governments, has been completely tilted in the executive's favour. We do ourselves no favours in rubber-stamping things through, in guillotining things. Even today, Mr Deputy Speaker, in a matter that you would be greatly interested in, there was a whips' agreement that the debate on East Timor be limited to four people contributing. How many members of this House would have an interest in the issue of East Timor and the funding of the troops there, yet what did we do? Not allow members to talk about the concerns they may have or the concerns their constituents may have, whether or not this is supported on both sides; we truncate the debate. In doing that, whilst it favours the executive in getting the matter through, it does us a great disservice. We need to redress that balance. What I am trying to say is that in small ways—and not in a radical way advocated by the member for Parramatta in some of his quotations—we need to change. We really do need to adapt. In that way, we will ensure the longevity of this as an important national institution. If we do not do so, I really worry what the outcome will be.There are a number of other things that the committee reported on. I have total sympathy with the view that we should be amenable to accepting electronic petitions. I know the honourable member for Parramatta has strong views about the way we should use the Internet to tap into public opinion. I am not averse to that, but we do need to make small incremental steps. That is not to, in any way, dissociate myself from the final conclusion of the committee's recommendations in this regard but to say that it is but a stepping stone, like any report. We have to make sure that the next step is not too long or too distant.On the issue of references, whilst we have made a couple of recommendations in this regard, I would be critical of parliamentary committees not utilising departmental reports in order to obtain short and sharp references where they can get in, look at a matter, report and be relevant. Mr Deputy Speaker Hollis, that is something that you would know only too well in your capacity as deputy chairman of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. It is a committee that has not tended to use departmental reports for its references.Last but not least, I would like to acknowledge the desire of the chairman and the committee to access the views of the chairmen and deputy chairmen of parliamentary committees as well as the secretariats. I thought we obtained a lot of useful ideas, information and understanding on what a lot of different committees were experimenting with or had already tried or what had worked well for them. Those secretaries of committees, chairmen and deputy chairmen of parliamentary House committees made an invaluable contribution to this report. I can only hope that, on reading the report, those same people might give us some feedback about what they agreed with and what they disagreed with. I hope, more particularly, that they will push for change from both the government and the opposition in relation to the things they agreed with.I say again how much I valued the contribution of the honourable member for Fraser, who is the Manager of Opposition Business in the House. I hope that at the next election we will go forward with a much wider program of reform than merely introducing petition committees.11:44:0013181Forrest, John, MPMr FORRESTNV5MalleeNP10—I am very pleased to follow the remarks made by the member for Chifley on the report entitled It's your House: community involvement in the procedures and practices of the House of Representatives and its committees . I have enjoyed participating in the procedures committee with the honourable member. I hope that all members give long consideration to this report, because I have not met a member in this parliament who has not had to defend the institution for the reason outlined by the member for Chifley, which is that the focus of what most people see in our electorates is question time.Some would argue that the untidiness of question time is the safety valve of our democracy. Unfortunately, when that is the continual focus, there is probably an automatic reason why people have a jaundiced view of this institution which we are all very proud to serve. It is with that background that the committee has made a very genuine attempt, as the title of the report stipulates, to give the Australian populace the opportunity to be confident there is a process for them to participate in the activities of this place.There was a comment made by a witness to the committee, a Dr Andrew Brien from the Charles Sturt University, who works in the Centre for Professional and Applied Ethics. Whilst the committee did not entirely agree with all the evidence provided by Dr Brien, there was a statement in his evidence that really influenced my determination to ensure that this report made some recommendations in a very genuine attempt to address the issue. As the member for Parramatta has so eloquently reminded us, if the citizens feel their institution does not reflect their desires for their nation, that is a dangerous position for us to be placed in. Dr Brien said in his evidence:The consequences of community alienation from the institutions of government are potentially disastrous. Democracies—and the benefit they provide—are sustained only through the consent and participation of their citizens.I am not stressing this to be alarmist—and when we consider the unsatisfactory state of democracy in many countries, particularly our near neighbours, we have reached nowhere near that extent—but I do support the sentiment expressed by Dr Brien.With all of that and against the background of what all members genuinely perceive as a lack of confidence, or more a lack of respect for the credibility of the institution, the committee made a very genuine effort to stretch the boundaries, if you like, to even widen the tunnel. It actually stretched beyond what would be considered its normal responsibility as a procedure committee. I would like to commend the member for Sturt, the chairman of our committee, for the way in which he did that in interviews, not just with chairmen of committees but with the staff and the secretarial support of other standing committees.The report goes to issues to do with the broadcasting of parliament—another aspiration for which every committee member was trying to make recommendations to achieve progress normally beyond the charter of the Procedure Committee. It was good to get cooperation from the other committees, and I do not think we found any participants from other committees who did not share the same concerns we had.The committee went to a whole range of issues, all of which are part of making the parliament more accessible. Other members have made reference to some of these in respect of petitions. My view is that whilst I have great expectations of what technology can provide—and I am convinced that in 50 years time the parliament will be a lot different from the way it is today—we ought to constrain ourselves to taking small steps with a view to improving rather than taking a giant leap of faith and in that process making a giant mistake. So we have been conservative in our suggestions in respect of petitions.One of the things I do support, though, is the concept of an annual report, an annual summary of all the petitions presented to parliament, and a record of the responses. If in this way we can give confidence to the people out there that this is a legitimate process for placing their concerns before the parliament and that it gets results, that ought to be reported. The committee is so convinced about the merit of this idea that it has undertaken to make that annual reporting process part of its own activities.In broad terms, I sum up this report as a genuine attempt to improve the credibility of the parliament. I serve a huge electorate in Victoria of which I am immensely proud. It is a great honour to serve 80,000 constituents, who have their own personal aspirations of what they want their nation to achieve, but it is appalling sometimes to hear the very sad reflections that some of those people make.I am even more concerned when it comes to young people. Our youth are our nation's greatest resource. There is no doubt about that and, whilst we might have huge mineral reserves, oil reserves and capital resources, there is no doubt that this nation's achievements in 100 years will be brought about by the motivation of our most valuable resource, and that is our people.It is vital that young people have faith in the institutions of this place. When they come here, they often say to me, `Mr Forrest, if we behaved in the classroom as we saw in question time, the teacher would take some very strong disciplinary action.' I say to them, `Did you see a committee at work? Did you have an opportunity to see members of parliament from all sides, despite their ideological partisan positions, actually agreeing to make some progress on a particular issue?' Invariably, they say no. So I was very pleased to have the support of members of the committee to ensure that the very excellent work our education office does with school visits includes a visit to sit in the gallery while a committee is at work. With some of the committees that might be considered a very dull thing—a lot of parliamentary activity relates to the economy and to accountability—but, in that way, they could see members of parliament from all sides genuinely making an effort to make progress on an issue. If that recommendation is adopted, at least one sector of the community will see more of the activities of the place than they would usually see in their lounge room when they sit and listen to the evening news with their parents.I was particularly delighted to see the Speaker announce in the parliament several days after our report was first tabled that he had taken action to provide the continual reporting of the parliamentary process on the Internet. This is another small step in the process of making the parliament more available. But I am just a little concerned. Whilst there is an enormous uptake of Internet access in households across Australia, a very large proportion of Australians still cannot afford that particular access. We still need to complement that wonderful step with many of the other recommendations the report addresses.In terms of broadcasting of the parliament, I have received an enormous amount of representation from my own electorate that, with the advent of audio streaming of the ABC that has occurred over the years, very little of the electorate has access to the reporting of parliament. That is a lamentable thing. Whilst some would argue that people in rural and isolated locations make their choice to live in those locations and the cost to give them service on a per capita basis is a lot more expensive than for those who live in the metropolis or provincial centres, they are entitled as citizens of the country making a very worthwhile contribution to our GDP to at least have access to what I consider the foremost institution of the nation.I have mentioned earlier in my remarks my sense of satisfaction and pride in being a member of this place, because it is so much a statement about what our democracy represents. I was impressed by a comment that was made to me in my first year as the member for Mallee here. Walking across the marble hall I was approached by an international visitor from Korea. He asked me if I was a member of parliament. I gather that we are a little obvious as we walk around the place. I said that I was and that I was very proud to be so. He said, `Well, you must be extremely proud of your democracy here in Australia to present it in the form of this building.' That statement has impressed me ever since in terms of the regard which other countries in our near region have for what we have here. It is something we should not treat cheaply.If there is a sentiment being expressed by the citizens of the constituency that the parliament does not relate to them, then I think we owe it to them to respond positively to this report. I commend it to all members and I look forward to the executive embracing the general thrust of its recommendations. It is not an assault on some of the very worthwhile institutions of the parliament. The recommendations are the result of thrashing around we have done as a committee with respect to a number of issues of the way a committee works. There are issues of privilege that are important and that need to be preserved; yet we are making recommendations that some process be put in place to create a better opportunity for media exposure of some of the very worthwhile things that many committees report.I had the honour of chairing the Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs in the last parliament. I will always be proud of the fact that that committee, in a very busy two-year period, produced six reports of which every single one was unanimous. That takes a lot of work, given some of the sensitive issues that we were dealing with in community health and so forth. I am immensely proud of that record. One of the reports entitled Health on line was to do with enhancing the provision of health using technology. I was impressed by the opportunity and interest that provided to the media to report something very positive.I make reference to the family and community affairs committee because we tried to be innovative in the manner in which we collected evidence on Aboriginal health—the inquiry is still currently in progress—and we made a deliberate attempt to ensure that the committee served as a catalyst for change as it went along. Rather than being engaged in the normal laborious process of having a long inquiry, making a report, getting a response from government and implementing plans, we actually tried to stimulate the process as we went along, and we were very pleased to see some very innovative experimentation done to deliver a better health service to remote communities.One of the things we did in order to stretch the activity was to involve the chairman of the National Association of Aboriginal Health Organisations. We invited him to participate in our inquiry process and, every now and again, if we had a question to do with health service, we would swear him in. It was very worth while, innovative, different and an attempt to ensure that Aboriginal communities had some faith in the work we were doing. That is just another example of what committees can do in terms of being innovative and ensuring that people have confidence that their views are being heard and that they are part of a participatory process. So I commend the report to all members. I am hoping the executive will respond in a very positive way, keeping in mind that the aspiration of the report is to give some credibility to the operation of the parliament. (Time expired)11:59:0013184Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—Today I, too, would like to congratulate the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Procedure for its report It's your House: community involvement in the procedures and practices of the House of Representatives and its committees . The chairman, the member for Sturt, the deputy chairman, the member for Chifley and other members of this committee have done a tremendous job in making recommendations which, for the benefit of the public, will go a long way in demystifying the work of the members of this House. I note that the terms of reference of the inquiry outlined the issues to be covered and that they were to include the petitioning process, a review of the right of reply of people referred to in the House, the use of electronic communication by committees and improving community involvement in the work of the committees.As the member for Chifley said in his speech on 22 November 1999, this is a significant report about an important subject `that is opening up the parliament to the people'. One of the very real challenges that we, as members, face is that people feel removed from the work that is undertaken by this House and are not included in making submissions to any great extent. The recommendations made by the committee are those which seek to include the wider community.This report deserves the support of every member of this House because it seeks to encourage community interaction with the parliament, not just through the traditional methods of tabling a petition but through making committees more accessible and more relevant to members of the public. The report also makes an innovative recommendation about members being able to lodge questions on notice on behalf of their constituents whose names would also appear in the Notice Paper. This would be trialled and limited to 25 questions on notice per member. However, the member would still be able to lodge questions on notice on their own behalf.In terms of the role of the petition under the recommendations made by the committee, petitions will be given greater weight in several ways: firstly, by ensuring that the formalities of a petition are less rigid; secondly, by allowing members of parliament, if they wish, to table the petition themselves in a 90-second statement to the House or a three-minute statement in the Main Committee; thirdly, by referring the petitions automatically to committees; fourthly, by giving committees the power to take up an inquiry on a petition; and, fifthly, by compiling an annual report of ministerial responses to petitions.It is my view that the government must implement these recommendations to ensure that petitions which come from our communities can receive greater publicity when they are brought to the attention of and acted upon by the parliament. I would also note that at present, under the current standing orders, petitions are not allowed to be mentioned in debate. If the recommendations are implemented, this would provide a real opportunity for the public to put issues on the agenda. I believe that if, after tabling a petition, a member could also speak in debate about the issues raised by the petition, it would do justice to the work done by those people in their communities to bring these matters to the attention of the parliament.I now turn to the issue of how people can respond to adverse comments made about them in the House. I strongly support the recommendations made by the committee in an attempt to give people who have been adversely referred to in a speech an opportunity to set the record straight where the House has been misinformed. Specifically, I refer to recommendation 6, which says:. . . information about the availability of the right of reply process be placed on the Parliament's Internet site on the pages from which Hansard reports and live telecasts of proceedings are accessed, with links to full details on how to apply.I further note that people who have been referred to adversely in the published evidence of a committee are free to respond directly to the committee involved.I would also like to give some mention to the recommendations about House procedure, particularly that standing orders be restructured and rewritten to make them more logical, intelligible and readable. As one of the newer members of this House, I am sure that, if this recommendation were implemented, this would greatly assist new members to better understand the standing orders. It would also make it easier for the community at large to understand how this House is run.I believe that recommendations 10 and 11 referring to public access to the proceedings of the House are useful and ought to be supported by all members. I have noticed the recent change to the Parliament House Internet site which allows the public to view a live broadcast of the parliament as it occurs. It is a great change which I commend because it will allow people to see that, despite media reports about the activities of the House, particularly question time, and despite our political differences, members on both sides of the House really do get along with each other. The public should know this. At the moment, the public mostly see only the seven-second grabs on the evening news bulletins which reflect the theatre of parliament and do not truly reflect most of the good work which goes on in the House.I noted a few moments ago when I was listening to the speech by the member for Mallee that he was making the same point. It is a shame that the media are really only interested in reporting things that might be seen as provocative and that reflect adversely on members of this House. That is sad. Quite plainly, the media are only interested in sensationalising a story, the proceedings of the House or a committee in the parliament. That gives quite an incorrect view of how the parliament operates and generally how we all work together for the better of this country.I turn now to the role of parliamentary committees. Once again the Procedure Committee has done a terrific job in finding out some of the problems and making practical recommendations to resolve some of the current issues. I support the idea that committee work must be more strongly promoted. As a member of two House of Representatives standing committees—namely communications, transport and the arts and legal and constitutional affairs—I know that most people do not really understand why committees exist and what they do. I also strongly support recommendation 16 that is basically about educating school students from a young age on what the work of a parliamentary committee involves. This is very important and should be taught in schools.I also call on the government to implement the committee's recommendation that government respond to committee reports within a four-month time frame. This recommendation is vital because it serves to ensure that the committee work is responded to in a timely manner and that the reports remain relevant. It also means that those people who take the time and make an effort to make submissions to an inquiry receive a response from the government about their concerns. People expect that their considerations are taken seriously by the government. The committee should also inform contributors to the inquiry of the result, so that the public can see the process of the committee inquiry in its entirety, and in an open and accessible manner. I call on the government to implement recommendation 27 as soon as possible to ensure that the work of this House is made more accessible and more relevant to the public.I also congratulate the Speaker of the House of Representatives for publishing a brochure about the current issues of the House of Representatives. About the House is a publication which will be issued five times per year. It is an important measure. Congratulations should go to the government for the early implementation of recommendation 14 of the committee's report through this publication. About the House greatly clarifies the work of the House and its committees and is available to anyone on request. I am very impressed with this publication and I intend to promote it widely across my electorate of Lowe. This publication contains a tremendous amount of information which should be made readily available to the people of Australia.Unfortunately, the people of Australia can rely only on the media in all its manifestations to get a true picture of what comes out of the work of the House and, indeed, the parliament. Often only a very small amount of the parliamentary debate is ever reported through television, radio or newspapers. The publication About the House obviously provides an insider's view on the House. It has information about business tax and the bills that come before the House. It has information about the Reserve Bank, the parliament's desire for the community to have a greater say in the work of the parliament and a number of other references to parliamentary committees.I will just talk for a few moments about some of the current inquiries in which I am participating. It is tremendous that the information in this report is being made available. As a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs I am about to embark upon an inquiry into human cloning. Already, I have been approached by a number of people who are very disturbed about the prospect of human cloning.Public forums are to take place in relation to this inquiry in March next year. I will certainly be encouraging people in my electorate of Lowe to participate, because there are grave ethical concerns about human cloning—I understand that clearly. There is also some hope of promoting the growth of arms and legs by the manipulation of the human DNA and thereby helping people who are unfortunate enough to have lost a limb.Having worked some years ago as the chief executive officer of the Repatriation Artificial Limb and Appliance Service, I came in contact with many ex-servicemen who had suffered the loss of a limb and also with thalidomide babies who are now well and truly adults. I have never forgotten seeing, on one occasion, a young girl, who had virtually no arms and legs, bouncing down the corridors of the limb centre in North Sydney. I say to all those people who are very concerned about human cloning—and I am concerned about it—that this inquiry into the subject will hopefully offer some hope that people who have been maimed will get some relief.I refer to another inquiry that the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Communications, Transport and the Arts is conducting. You yourself, Mr Deputy Speaker Hollis, are a member of that committee. I congratulate you on your great interest in transport and the contribution you have made to that committee. I really feel that not many people understand the impact of fatigue in transport, the subject of this inquiry. They do not understand the fact that being awake for 17 hours is equivalent to having a blood alcohol content of 0.5 per cent, which is very disturbing, and the consequences of people not getting sufficient sleep on our roads, in our skies and on our seas. This publication About the House provides a lot of very useful information about the work of that committee. I recommend that everyone read it, because we all drive motor vehicles and travel in aircraft and ships. We can certainly learn something by that.I have also been a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, which is inquiring into the enforcement of copyright. I am sure that the report we tabled the other day will go a long way to helping the owners of copyright control the ownership of their work and not have it pirated and stolen—without denying the right to public access for those in the community who need it for their learning and academic pursuits.Finally, I am involved in an inquiry into radio racing services. A lot of people would not know that people are denied a broadcast of racing in remote areas of Australia and that the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Communications, Transport and the Arts is conducting an inquiry into that matter. It's your House is a great report, and I congratulate the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Procedure on a job well done. (Time expired)12:14:0013188Gash, Joanna, MPMrs GASHAK6GilmoreLP10—At a time when public perception of politicians, both state and federal, is at an all-time low, and criticism of government bureaucracy is frequent, it is high time that the people bearing the brunt of this criticism did something about it. I am not talking about a closed shop approach, but one of open government, a situation that has been prevalent under the coalition. Certainly, some people can get caught up in Comcars, flash offices and fact-finding trips to wherever. At the end of the day, the questions must be asked: `To whom are we really responsible?' and `What is this place really for?' The answer is scaringly simple, but often forgotten. It is for the people of the Commonwealth of Australia. We are their representatives; this is their parliament; it is their House.It's your House is a report by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Procedure, a committee I knew little about when I first joined it. I would like to place on record my appreciation to the member for Sturt. The report was produced under his guidance. Thanks also to Robyn Webber and Julia Morris. It was the work of these people that made what could have been a boring and lifeless committee actually fun to participate in and certainly very rewarding. It gave us scope to make changes but, more importantly, it allowed us the opportunity to reconnect with the community. It allowed the mystique of the House to be examined and presented in simpler terms to the community, yet still enable fairness and consistency in proceedings. Importantly, it allowed a framework to aid further dignity to the House.The report also presented a clear list of strategies so that the community could become involved in any inquiry. It showed how one could gather evidence and how to promote the advantage of holding a public inquiry. I strongly believe that, as a member representing my electorate of Gilmore, to know the concerns and issues in the electorate I must be part of it. My electorate of Gilmore is rather large and it takes approximately four hours to travel from one end to the other. But to be part of my electorate, I am constantly travelling around its villages and setting up my table and chairs to talk to people about their concerns so that I can convey them in their parliament.The House of Representatives Practice says:. . . responsible government requires that proposed laws and many other processes of government be brought into public view through the medium of the House where administration and policies may be subject to public debate and where the pressures of public opinion may be brought to bear on the Government through the collective membership.This is the job of an elected representative but, for a representative to represent the people, the people in turn must know the issues so that they can scrutinise the issues and assist the member in representing them more effectively and efficiently.Under this government, we have attempted to make the parliament more accessible to those who might not even be able to attend. While on the parliament Internet site, people can view committees from the House of Representatives and the Senate as well as the chambers themselves at all times of the day during sitting weeks. During question time or any other time of the day they can watch their local member speak. Those living in Gilmore who cannot spend the time to travel to Canberra, for example, can turn on their computer and tune in to the parliament live on the Internet.Community involvement in the procedures and practices of the House of Representatives also continues the advocacy for news broadcasting of parliamentary debates, as well as the ABC broadcasting question time from the chambers on TV, along with the televised summary on the ABC's Order in the House program, which reviews the highlights of parliament each sitting week. It is through these means that we can open up parliament to the people who really do own it.The House, under the Constitution, is master of its own affairs and operates independent of the people. It is in accordance with this concept that the standing orders make no provision for people other than members to initiate business or participate directly in the proceedings, other than through the work of its committees.The report, tabled on 22 November 1999, does have very valuable ideas that could be adopted not just for the better running of the House but for the betterment of Australia. Members of parliament who get up and spruik about what they believe is the right thing to do, without the true knowledge and understanding of their electorate, are not effectively representing their people. It is my view that, by making the House more accessible and more open to people, people will be less discouraged to participate in the proceedings of government.The question must be raised: does this mean that, having voted, there is no further political role for individuals in the community? The Procedure Committee is of the view that, in order for the House to perform its role effectively, it is important for members individually and collectively to keep in touch with community views and the effect on people of legislation and government action. If scrutiny of government administration and policy is to be effective, it is also necessary for the public to be aware of parliamentary debate and action in this regard. It is through this debate that people can contribute by having the knowledge to speak with their local member on any particular issue.This report also recommends amendments to the standing orders to make parliament more understandable for, to participate, people must be able to understand the process. Such standing orders as the ones relating to petitions have been suggested for amendment, so as to let citizens have a greater say in government. It is through petitions that not only the member but the entire House can see what the perception is in the community by a particular group that takes a particular view. It can also give the government rough numbers of how many people actually support a project or, more to the point, how many people are against it. To better explain and highlight the subject of petitions, a suggestion is to allow members to speak to them during their 90-second statements in the House or their three-minute statements in the Main Committee.The committee also recommends that an integral aspect of parliament—question time—be open to the people. Currently, people can watch question time from the public galleries, and it is at this time of the day that people who are most interested in parliament tend to focus on the House. This report takes us one step further by allowing members of the public to participate in question time by granting each electorate's citizens 25 questions per year through their representative. This will allow members to ask ministers questions directly in the House under the scrutiny of the media at the behest of their constituents. Thus, for people who may not understand the processes of parliament or who may not be able to reach or visit parliament, they can derive an answer from their local member who asks their question in parliament.In addition, citizens often feel that parliament is beyond reproach if they are mentioned or misrepresented in a speech by a member or considered in the process of a committee. Currently, that person has a right of reply or redress, but the process seems to exclude the community through the barrier of mystique. This committee recommends that the right of reply be open to those who feel they have been misrepresented in the processes of parliament and government. This could easily be brought about by publicity on how to seek that redress. While the options and proposals canvassed in this report are by no means exhaustive, they are indicative of some small steps which the House, its committees and those supporting them may take to improve the community's understanding of, and involvement in, the parliament.Unfortunately, this has not been the case over previous years. In 1983 there were 1,885 petitions, and in 1996 there were only 430. There has been a radical reduction in the number of petitions presented in that 13-year period, and the number is still dropping. This is something which this report hopes to rectify upon the implementation of its recommendations.While I have spoken about new and different initiatives for the procedures, there are also far wider opportunities for the public to obtain these reports if it wishes to participate. In particular, we want to ensure that adequate access to all information explaining about public hearings is provided to schools.In conclusion, there was an issue which I did not present to the committee, but I will place on notice a motion to have it discussed in the new year—that is, the issue of seating arrangements. At present the major parties, when in the chamber, sit opposite one another, forming the two sides of the House. It could be said that this seating arrangement enhances the adversarial nature of the parliamentary procedure. Whilst our parliamentary system is based on vigorous debate of all issues, to winnow fact from fashion, sometimes the debate takes precedence over the issue to the detriment of the standing of the parliament. Several people have been considering ways to focus the parliament on the issues at hand, rather than on the flamboyance of the debate. A suggestion is made that, if the seating arrangements were altered to intersperse generally around the chamber members of parliament from all points of view, the dynamics of the debate might change.As a result, it is proposed that: discussions be undertaken to establish seating arrangements which would reflect the suggested interlocation of various party MPs; the Speaker's office be encouraged to create a process that could enable the Speaker to perform the functions required within the proposed seating arrangements; a survey process be established to ascertain members' thoughts as well as public reaction to the trial; there be a trial of the suggested seating arrangements; and any trial of the proposal be televised with adequate publicity, encouraging people to advise their thoughts. This proposal would give credibility to statements made at the commencement of this parliament that the procedures of the House were being reviewed to upgrade the standing of the parliamentary process and politicians in general in the eyes of the public.I was proud to have been a member of the committee, and I look forward to future greater participation next year. I certainly commend the report to the House. But, complementary to the spirit of our report, It's your House, about enabling more public participation in the parliamentary process, may I put on the record that this speech was written and researched by Mr Gareth Ward, a young man who has just finished his HSC. He is here in the chamber today, together with Michaela Packer. They are both at Bomaderry High School and are doing voluntary work experience with me at the moment.Debate (on motion by Mr Wilton) adjourned.Main Committee adjourned at 12.25 p.m.Answers to Questions in Writing13192The following answers to questions were circulated:13192(Question No. 957)95713192Danby, Michael, MPMr DanbyWF6Melbourne PortsALP00 asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 30 September 1999:Since he has held the portfolio and prior to the 30 August 1999 referendum in East Timor, had he (a) met with or (b) spoken in 1999 on the telephone to (i) Lt General John Shelton, the Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, or (ii) William Cohen, the US Secretary of Defense; if so, (A) when and where was or were the meeting or meetings held, (B) when was or were the telephone call or calls made and (C) are there any notes, memoranda or other documentation concerning the (I) meeting or meetings or (II) telephone call or calls; if so, will he provide copies; if not, why not.13192Moore, John, MPMr MooreEI4RyanLPDefence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(a) (i) Yes.(ii) Yes.(b) (i) Yes.(ii) Yes.(A) I met with the Chairman of the US Joint Chief of Staff, General H Shelton, on 5 May 1999 at a plenary session at the Pentagon in Washington. I also met with the US Secretary of Defense, William Cohen, on 5 May 1999 at the Pentagon in Washington.(B) The telephone calls were made in the time frame specified.(C) There are no notes or memorandum or other documentation available concerning the meetings or telephone calls. The meetings and telephone conversations discussed portfolio matters.